Harry Potter: A Hero For the ‘Entitled Generation’
by Big Hollywood
Compare [Harry Potter to] Luke Skywalker, who has to conquer his own vanity, laziness and anger in order to earn his powers. Harry, like many of his generation, is the Cosseted One from an early age. He’s told that he’s special, that he’s got awesome gifts, that those who don’t understand this are blind to the plain facts. Deploying his powers involves no more character or soul-searching than following a recipe.
The whimsical creations and the narrative pull — making readers beg to know what’s going to happen next — are all Rowling offers. The great kids’ works strike deep, satisfying chords. “The Wizard of Oz” would be just a Technicolor fun ride without Dorothy’s discovery that everything she always wanted was right there at home. “Willy Wonka” isn’t just a funny freak-out. It’s also a near-biblical catalog of sinners and punishment. The Potter tales are built on nothing. Inside them is a deathly hollow.
Is there any children’s writer more dismissive of morals? A Rowling kid starts learning at an early age that principles are adjustable depending on convenience.
Rowling ignores ethics to the point of encouraging dishonorable behavior. Harry spends “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” — the film version of which is raking it in this weekend — cheating out of a textbook that has all the answers written in the margins, causing him to fraudulently win a luck potion that he uses to solve the central mystery.
Read the whole thing here.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
179 Comments
Pshaw! IF you read the books you would know ( or if you trusted your eyes at the movies) that he is considered obnoxious for doing this in this and scorned and stopped. Again, my spoiled friends, you have to WAIT and see (or read!). Ha-ha. This is more of a generation that SEES itself in every mirror!
Pshaw! IF you read the books you would know ( or if you trusted your eyes at the movies) that he is considered obnoxious for doing this and is scorned and stopped. Again, my spoiled friends, you have to WAIT and see (or read!). Ha-ha. This is more of a generation that SEES itself in every mirror!
Man oh man, this is going to bring the hate. Having only read the first HP and been bored silly, I'll merely say that there are few things in life funnier than ticked off HP devotees. I look forward to reading the comments.
Agreed. Sounds to me like someone who never read the books. Or the Wizard of Oz or Willy Wonka for that matter.
Generation Babyboom StlDan, that's where it all began.
True enough Andrew, my generation is certainly not without fault. Those of us who did not support the Statis movement, still did not fight hard enough to quell it.
Codswallop!
I just see a posh English public schoolboy who falls over a lot…kind of like Hugh Grant…I've met plenty of the little turds…in fact we have a government here full of them..
Harry Potter is the perfect hero for the "entitle generation." Starting with Gen X and culminating with the current batch of ankle biters, we've been told repeatedly how "special" we are. How we have awesome gifts, and all the potential in the world to blah blah blah. Raise your hand if you're under 40 and watched "Dead Poet Society" in English class.
Being the "chosen one" is not a panacea. People can tell you you're special and magical and that the world is your oyster. How many of us under 40-types still live at home, or put off marriage until we're in our late 20s or 30s? How many of us hopped around from college to college, major to major, lover to lover, never satisfied to be ourselves — warts and all — and accept the consequences?
We're the ones who were raised with moral relativism and activist educators, attempting to mold us into perfect little jungens, good little multi-cultural liberals and acolytes of "Captain Planet."
But if we're lucky, just like Harry we discover (SPOILER ALERT!) that there's nothing special about us at all. We were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and completely lack any special ability to allow us to defeat the monsters in life. What then? Like for Harry, it's gut-check time. It's stepping up, facing the evil that so many other people wish would just go away, and making a sacrifice of ourselves to protect the ones we love. It's time to accept the consequences of being who we are. No BS, no "carpe diem" feel-good, new-age, relativistic nonsense. No hiding behind "authority" or bureaucracies that put their own well-being ahead of who they claim to represent.
So yes, Harry Potter is a hero for the "Entitled Generation," scare quotes and all.
There have been several times i felt a strange lack of consequences in the Harry Potter movies. The latest movie has Harry nearly killing a fellow classmate in the boys bathroom. The plumbing has been destroyed, the kid is bleeding to death, and all that happens is a sinister look from one of his professors. Ho-hum. Back to class. No one in authority is even curious about what just happened as they send the injured bully to the hospital?
This author has definitely not read the books (or really paid attention to them).
What Goblet of Fire and Half-Blood Prince are really good at is illustrating how the media (especially one with an agenda) can manipulate perception. In GOF – Harry is crazy and dangerous (because he's saying things the government doesn't want the average person to know). In HBP he is "the Chosen One" because they need someone to prop up as a hero and an inspiration in the fight. And Harry refuses to participate.
Well put, Ronnie.
I've slogged my way through enough explanations of why Harry Potter is bad because of his exceptionality. Wrong, I'm scolded, to say that anyone has anything special about his or her birth. Damaging, even.
It takes a pretty big stretch, though… Harry Potter is no more inherently talented than those around him and the fact that he's been singled out by various adults is not helpful. No one could argue that anything about his birth has made his life easier for him.
Traditional male stories of heroism, from the Odyssey, to Beowulf, to say, comic book heroes like Daredevil or Superman, incorporate male ideas of the path to heroism. Control of fear, acceptance of death and loss, sticking to the right thing, of honor, of duty, and so on, even when they are very difficult and emotionally draining. They are stories about men, written by men, for a readership of men.
The Potter series is written by a woman, for a mostly female audience, with a woman's conception of a man, rather than a man's. Situational ethics, interpersonal relationships, judgment based on identity not actions, are all part and parcel of Harry Potter, the Sookie Stackhouse Vampire books, the Twilight Books, and so on. These books touch what women are concerned with, not abstract and demanding codes of honor and conduct, but relationships and being "special." These are all good, necessary things in maintaining small group cohesion, intact families, bringing up kids (particularly young ones who lack reasoning) and so on.
They are both an unmitigated disaster applied to a larger, masculine world of big groups (nations and peoples) and uninteresting to young boys interested in "guidebooks" for how to be a man: controlling anger and fear, their own physical power, dealing with drudgery, authority, and of course women. This is why if you look at the Star Wars fanbase and the Potter fanbase, the former is almost exclusively male (they respond well to the basic themes of the first movie series — how to be a hero) and the latter almost exclusively female (which responds well to Rowlings themes of how to have relationships).
Neither are "better" than the other, women are not "better" than men and men are not "better" than women. Each gender has wired-in strengths and weaknesses requiring cultural instruction on how to compensate for the latter and enhance the former.
But let's be honest. JK Rowling, a single mother from feminized Britain, could no more understand boy's desires to know how to be a hero than George Lucas, a very masculine man from the masculine 1950's America, could understand how to be a woman seeking a good relationship. [The weakest parts of Star Wars were the depictions of the women and their desire for relationships.] This is why Harry Potter instinctively rubs guys the wrong way, why they don't like him, as much as women detest Star Wars. He's a woman's idea of a man. Who simply is rather than becomes.
[Compare/contrast Harry Potter with Batman. The latter is the moral revenge of the powerless child, orphaned, who brings terror and fear within moral limits to his childhood tormentors, by power of will and intellect. Potter simply drifts from relationship to relationship. Very feminine.]
As Rowling has said, books are like mirrors, you can't expect a fool to look in and see a genius looking out.
Way to miss the central point of the series: that evil is evil and fighting it will cost you, but not as much as NOT fighting it.
Harry lost both parents to Voldemort, and as the series continues, Harry loses all of his parent figures until he is left to fight alone, and he has to be willing to sacrifice his own life to finish off Voldemort.
As for Harry's being "special," he hates it. HATES it. Hates the way people treat him, hates what it does to his friends, hates it all. Chamber of Secrets is all about the downside of fame (Harry rarely experiences the upside), and Guilderoy Lockhart is a pitch-perfect narcissist who craves fame more than anything. And Harry can't stand him.
Rowling creates a "chosen one" and gives him magical powers and his life STILL sux. Hardly an endorsement for entitlement.
"Harry spends “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” — the film version of which is raking it in this weekend — cheating out of a textbook that has all the answers written in the margins,"
Not true. The "answers" are not written in the margins. He did not cheat on tests. The book was full of recipes for potions, and the HBP had discovered better or easier ways to do things and wrote them down. The book says to "cut" something open, the writing says to smash it with the knife blade, which happens to work better. The students were NOT expected to figure out that they were supposed to smash it with a knife blade.
Furthermore, Harry went ahead and used a spell he found in the book without knowing what it was and almost killed Draco. Again, the theme of Misplaced Trust arises, which is common in the series.
Actually, all I ever learned from the stories – which I have, in fact, read – is that, among other things, one in four people is just evil. (See – anything anyone in Slytherin does, ever. Even Snape, before kinda-sorta-repenting, seems to treat evil as a crack fiend treats his drugs of choice).PLUS, just because you were a jackass jock who bullied everyone, broke all the rules, and got away with it because you were the Teacher's Pet, that's no reason you shouldn't be admired – and even get The Smart Pretty Girl! (See – James Potter and every single one of his rotten friends)
Never seen any of this Potter stuff. I liked LOTR, but that is the only fantasy I've ever gotten into. This stuff looks childish – like Mary Poppins or something. Never watched that, either. But this theme you mention is pretty common in escapist narratives – especially popular among the lazy and intellectually challenged American audience.
The whole idea behind Potter is that he is NOT the Chosen One. He BECOMES the Chosen One through choices he makes, not as an accident of birth. As with anyone else, he can explore, exploit, or ignore the conditions of his birth.
And it is ironic in the extreme to comment about "no morals" when writing of a series whose very framework is the same as C.S. Lewis's
erelandra" series — that everything revolves around and comes down to making the right choices in the battle between good and evil. To say it all depends upon the textbook is like saying Dorothy's journey was meaningless because she didn't cause it; a tornado did or that she cheated because she had to look to the Scarecrow, Lion, etc., to succeed in killing the witch.
Methinks some ambitious essayist is attempting to gain a little notoriety by going against the grain and stirring up a little controversy. Maybe the Kyle is envious because J.K. Rowling is the "Chosen One" of modern-day classic fantasy, and he is not.
EXACTLY EXACTLY EXACTLY!! This is why Ive always felt JKR missed out on focusing the story on Draco, who offered more opportunity for the journey of redemption and identity and growth than Harry Potter. But JKR, after admonishing that her books were "about not believing what you see on the surface" would routinely dismiss Draco as a simple stereotype bully…it wasnt until Book 6 that she actually started adding some depth to Draco. Draco was a character that WANTED to be born – practically every great writer has a character that started out as inconsequential and then 'took over' and became a central part of the writers story (Peregrin Took, Eric Northman are a couple that *I* know of)…but I got the distinct feeling that JKR kept sitting on Draco.
Like Ive said before, there are some merits to her books, beyond the usual blather about 'it got kids to read' (Oh yeah? did they go on to read great literature like the Odyssey or the Iliad or Canterbury Tales or any of the other great works??? No…didnt think so) – but her refusal to develop characters that obviously had a life to offer to the story tells me everything. I get tired of reading stories where Im supposed to be sympathetic to a character just because all these bad things happen to him. Sheesh.
LOL!
In other words… it's not that you have different *tastes*… it's that your tastes define what is good and worthy and intellectually challenging.
(As for the inherent inferiority of American audiences… take a quick look at the shows foreign countries buy from *us* (Baywatch, etc.) and the shows *we* buy from overseas.)
I've often thought that Rowlings wrote the series with a child development and psychology text book at her elbow.
Installment 5 is when young people loose their illusions, discover that their parents had feet of clay, and start to suspect there is more going on than they were previously aware.
In the first book, and the second, the kids (the "good" ones) were often thoughtlessly cruel. As children are.
Id consider JKR "classic fantasy" if she had given a two toots damn about her writing! Praise her all you want, but that woman deserves to have her butt kicked by a serious editor. Otherwise Harry Potter is McDonalds next to the Porterhouse that Tolkien, CS Lewis, Ursula LeGuin et al are.
Gotta agree with you on that one CBK. Having grown up reading Tolkien's work I decided I should read HP to see what all the buzz was about. I was told by so many "adults" that it was a modern age LOTR and that I had to read it. Really? Made it to the third chapter and donated it to the local library. I'm a big sci fi/ fantasy geek, but this did nothing for me.The movies are "cute" and watchable and that's about it.
Now they'll kill me….:-)
Never seen a Harry Potter movie or read a Harry Potter book. I have a life LOL.
Come on now Harley, play nice. Like you, I have no interest in HP, but decided to check out the comments anyway. Everybody needs something to get into, so I have no trouble at all with the good folks who can't do without him. Think of it this way, since you and I both posted comments on this thread, and have over 50 thumbs up good guy warrior points apiece from this chat room, should either of us really be making comments about "getting a life?"
Just have some good old fashioned fun with you here "don't mean nuthin' at all."
Central to the HP stories are a government denying to the people that there is an evil massing to take over, and the consequences of standing up to that government with unpopular truths. BH ought to love it.
What a bunch of malarkey. No moral story? All the books continually stress that Evil is Evil and needs to be fought. Dumbledore and Harry name Voldemort and not hide behind what eveyone else calls him, "Man Made Disaster", I mean, "You Know Who". No Compromise. No Negotiations. Even when for a moment Harry appeared to feel pity for young Tom Riddle for being abandoned in an orphanage, Dumbledore rebuked him. Gently, but a rebuke nonetheless, and Harry snapped back to realizing that's no excuse for his later acts of evil. As for not being punished for using the Half-Blood Prince's book, he was. He got detention for using Sectumsepra against Draco Malfoy, a spell learned from the book. Snape, being the Half-Blood Prince, knew he cheated in Slughorn's Potions class. Harry gets punished in the first book for being up late at night. He gets punished in the second book for being in a flying car in front of Muggles. Harry certainly does not get off scott-free for his misbehaviors.
Yet you felt the need to make such a comment in a Harry Potter related thread. What is this "life" you speak of again?
Gee, all time time I thought the Harry Potter series was about creepy Professors teaching magic tricks as the way to get through life.
Wave your academic wand of wizardry and the world will fall into place; shiny happy, it's made by the wave of a wand.
Uh, Kyle? You need to read the books. Everything you say is exactly wrong, as so eloquently stated in many of the comments here. You have beclowned yourself, and the Internet does not forget when a blogger does that. Whether it was pontificating on global warming or a children's book, when you get things that terribly wrong, you don't recover.
Have a nice life.
This guy's a f***ing moron. Did he miss the it's our choices that make us who we are part (I think both Dumbledore and Sirius said that at some point)? Did he not realize that Harry only uses the luck potion to do complete the important task Dumbledore has charged him with (as opposed to using it to get with Ginny)? Did he breeze over the part where Harry realized blindly following the easy path wasn't so great when he ended up a hack 'n' slasher after using the spell Sectum Sempra (from the Half-Blood Prince's book)? Or how about the rewards the kids earn for being brave and doing the right thing – including Neville. Remember the part in one of the earliest books where Neville stood up to his friends (and he didn't have many!) when they were breaking the rules? And how Dumbledore praised this action in front of the entire school? And how Neville and Luna, who are looked down on by many of their peers, are appreciated and accepted and truly liked by Harry? Harry's a nice guy, and he doesn't always take the easy path. As for Harry being so exceptional, this writer needs to go watch the scene in "Order of the Phoenix" in which Hermione tries to recruit students for a real defense against the dark arts class, which she persuades a reluctant Harry to teach; in this scene, Harry explains that he's survived his encounters with Voldemort largely thanks to help from others and luck. He's not stuck up, and in the end… well, I won't give away what Harry's willing to give up to save everyone else.
This writer reminds me that, like Cornelius Fudge, people see what they want to see.
I have truly appreciated the 2 Harry Potter movie reviews at BH, as well as today's essay. I have a son who is a HP fan—though not a rabid one. (LOTR and even Star Wars are more his 'thing.') As a parent who has never read the books or seen the movies, I've learned a lot from the posts and COMMENTS here. In fact, said son and I have had some very enjoyable discussions about HP based on the BH material.
Well noted. Unfortunately I felt there was a lot of junk to wade through to get to that rather significant point. Rowling didn't seem to realize that all because the story was about Harry Potter doesn't mean everything that happens to him is significant to the themes of the story. Perhaps she actually realized this but once the books caught on, she wanted to please the fans (not a bad thing) but the only way she could do that was with details, not significance. I think the underlying story is simple (but solid) and quite overburdened with junk.
No. Why kill you?
It's not as though you've said that because you didn't like it that everyone else is stupid, after all.
I read science fiction and fantasy and write it, too… there are things about Harry Potter that make it obvious that Rowling was not familiar with either genre. But those same things, and the writing itself which is relatively simple, are probably the very reasons that the books were so accessible to so many people.
I love hearing these claims – that the writing gets better, not because she was learning, oh no – Rowling was always perfect, and EVERYTHING was all plotted out, and she was just 'getting into character'.
Okay, sorry, that was mean. I can understand this theory. Oh, except for that bit where every single person in House Slytherin fought for The Lord of All Evil.
I'm sorry, what chapter of the psych book was THAT in?
We're talking about HARRY POTTER, right? HARRY POTTER. You can't possibly be talking about the same Harry Potter series I know and love…
You're honestly the first person I've ever come across claim there is no moral story in the Harry Potter series. Someone has obviously never read the books. Please, the last book in the series could be considered a Christian allegory.
Of all the books I've read, I can easily say Harry Potter is one of the most intensely moral. I have no idea where you're getting your analysis from, but it is way off target.
Having watched all the Potter movies to include the latest one; I don't see were Harry is treated as entitled. Actually, the movies have been good because they are full of comradeship and the willingness of a few to sacrifice against evil even though they could just walk away from it. When watching the movies, Harry and his friends represent to me the few young men and women serving this country in uniform against an evil most have forgotten about or do not want believe still exists.
I've read Tolkien, too, and JKR can't hold a candle to him. Having said that, I read all the HP books and enjoyed them. Basically, they're brain candy–but you keep that candy dish on the table within reach, and I'm gonna keep reaching for it. I've enjoyed the movies, too, though I don't ask much of them. I just like to see how books I've enjoyed reading have been adapted to the big screen, and how well the characters are portrayed by the chosen actors.
Modern-day LOTR, it ain't. But it takes the edge off.
Yes, we all have to endure a generation where everyone is special and unique and knows everything. Just ask any of them.
Unfortunately,, we all have to endure their Potternomics too.
I notice the wingers didn't mind Harry Potter so much before Rowling let on that Dumbledore was gay. After that, the memo went out, I guess.
So, having only read the first installment and not enjoying it (fantasy/scifi et al isn't my thing, nothing against the books and haven't seen the films), I'll ask HP fans: is Harry a type of messianic Christ-figure, a superman etc? Is there an archetype that can be applied to the story? For those who have read the thousands of pages, what is the overriding lesson – if there is on – to be taken from the HP canon?
Ichigo Kurosaki of Bleach is a far better role model than Harry Potter. He actually had to risk life and limb to train himself to be able to save his companions. Ichigo had to buck the system big time and went up against the Set in it's ways and corrupt political machine know as the soul society machine to save someone who was entrapped as a part of a bigger conspiracy. Harry is pretty much a kid who gets thrown around by destiny, Ochigo is someone who makes his own destiny.
[...] Here is the original post [...]
What is really interesting about the Wizard of OZ is that is was about the gold standard vs the silver standard.
This kind of story makes for much more interesting reading, at least for me. Challenging actually. I like books that challenge my thinking. I tried reading the first Potter book and found it boring. Got tired of reading so much dialogue.
Not reading = Having a life?
"Situational ethics," or what we living on planet Earth call it: "Thinking on your feet."
Smith really ought to at least hit up wikipedia before he tries to play Comparative Lit professor, considering how his citation of Luke Skywalker as an alternative kinda defeats his purpose. Luke has his powers and "chosen" status because he was born to it (even before Midichlorians the hero-journey in SW was all about bloodline inheritance) just like Potter and just like almost every other "mythic hero" type.
Where in the hell have you been?
Exactly. Kyle Smith may be on to something about the "entitled generation," but the rest of the criticism misses the point of HP. He may have been chosen, in a sense, but he's still had to make choices. There were many times in the books when things got difficult (to say the least) and he stood his ground, pressed on, or otherwise made the right choice–and not just because it was the easy choice. Also, in Order of the Phoenix Harry himself tells the students to whom he is teaching defense of the Dark Arts that he was no great wizard and was mostly lucky. That hardly suggests entitlement.
I believe you might be making a snarky comment on my post from the other day. My 17 yr old learned to read with HP. The summer before his junior year, he read Ulysses. The year after the 1st HP came out (he was in 3rd grade) he had already read all the children's book in our library about the Titanic. He then went on to all the adult books about the sinking, and in 4th grade, he read It Happened One Night. He also reads Shakespeare, along with Sports Illustrated.
Don't make rude assumptions.
Yeah, cause growing up amongst relatives that hate you without you even knowing why is all about being the Cosseted One.
This is nonsense on a couple of levels. First, some folks *did* complain about the HP books right from the start because of the magic angle. I thought the complaints were silly, but whatever. Second, I don't recall anyone on BH criticizing HP now *because* of Rowling's statement. If anything, some may not like her much for it, possibly because it was a publicity stunt or some such, but that didn't seem to affect their opinion of the books and movies one way or the other. Also, "wingers"? What, is that trollish for "right wingers" or were you just too lazy to type the entire intended slur?
Situational Ethics is indeed a big problem with the Potter books, because they don't teach young men/boys what they need to know: control, team-work, and self-sacrifice often through drudgery. Luke in the original movie particularly, and even the second two Stars Wars pics before Lucas went off the rails, was a nobody who became a somebody by both faith/trust, and self-sacrifice and control (particularly the latter two movies).
Contrary to Bryan Singer's view of Superman, btw, the character is not a Christ figure. Or redeemer. Rather he's the ordinary man (most of the time he's Clark Kent) who's embodiment of the American Dream gives him power (his costume is an idealized American flag). This is revolutionary, very assimilationist-nationalist (modern SWPL yuppies hate the idea) and could have only been created in the 1930's.
Harry Potter is a single mother's view of what a boy should be like. Which is about as damning as can be said about the whole series.
Not all the Slytherins are evil; they are ambitious to a fault. However, you only ever see a very few Slytherin characters in the book, and they do happen to be engaged in bad things. But, the house's population is comprised of more than just these characters. Not even all the Durmstrangs are evil although they're set up to seem suspicious.
Sheesh, I read the first ones because I had them in my classroom library at the time. I was entertained enough to stick with the story. They're a good summer read that I can chew through fast. I don't always want to pick up a meaty, intellectual treatise for my reading enjoyment.
This is satire of some kind, right?
Sharon, what you said about that 'blather about it getting kids to read' is very insulting and uncalled for. My daughter has a learning disability and we worked very very hard teaching her to read. She learned, but never caught onto reading for the enjoyment of reading. She resisted reading and it was affecting her education. Then one day she discovered Harry Potter. She enjoyed the books so much that she wanted to read more and more. She has become a great reader and has read some great classics, like Jane Austin books, etc. She is now a senior in college and has been on the deans list for years. There is no 'blather' about the great gift that reading has become to her, all because of a magical set of books that helped her learn how to read for the joy of it.
Does anyone else think the photo looks like the cover of a 1960's gay pulp novel, what with Draco's black turtleneck and the…er…point of his wand?
Harry Potter is the arch-type of the lost baby that turns out to be a Prince that goes all the way back to fairy tales.
Bits of Cinderella, abused by a step-family. Bits of a variety of other things… he's even got the "birth mark" that identifies him.
There are twists… hints that perhaps he's been misidentified or that the prophecy itself drives events rather than describes them. Rowling has archetypes by the dozens oozing out the seams.
[...] the original here: Harry Potter: A Hero For the ‘Entitled Generation’ This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
I made a very narrow claim only about the discovery that Harry Potter's father and his friends acted like a certain sub-set of "popular" teen-age boys who generally, at some point, grow the h*ll up and get over it.
Personally… I don't think that the writing gets better at all, and the plotting starts to fail toward the end as well… or did we not get dragged on a never-ending camping trip?
The only one here who sounds utterly sure that he's got it all figured out *perfectly* is you.
So is this article an attempt to get a bunch of people to discuss and argue? Taking an obviously controversial approach, that the author had to know was going to result in lots of people disagreeing with him, seems to point to a fraud being played on us. Since his points are so obviously off base to anyone who's read the series, the only answer I can come up with is the he did write it for just that reason. There wasn't anything easy or entitled about Harry's upbringing and education years. He suffered greatly from abuse until he was 12 and then over and over again on his summers. At school he became the target of many students, and even had his friends turn on him when he needed them the most. He came to learn that his ability with magic wasn't anything special when compared with all his peers, but he learned that despite that he had to work hard to do what fate had handed him.
I have only read the first 4 books and what leapt out at me immediately is the theme of celebrity. everyone is making a big deal of him, but and this is key, potter doesn't think he is a big deal and is in fact a little freaked out and irritated by it all. he's trying to be a "normal" wizard, and no one is letting him.
just about none of that makes it into the movies, so it sounds oh, harry's so special. and his humility is not mentioned.
And fact is this is a series about school and while you won't see him studying very much even in the books, you know he is actually killing himself to pass the classes and gain the knowledge. yes, he is gifted, but they make it pretty clear that being gifted is not enough.
I saw Harry grow as well. So did Hermione and Ron and a whole host of others. Maybe you are just Draco obsessed (a little snark back).
And kudos for the responders – I've hung out on a Harry Potter message board since early 2005. Many of the posters are young teens. And they are well-read, write very well, and are very intelligent. And the topics discussed range from Harry Potter, to all kinds of literature, TV, movies, art, politics, etc.
I hate it when people feel the need to feel superior b/c they didn't like the books. If you don't like them, fine. But that doesn't make the rest of us stupid because we did, whether we are children or adults.
Many of you have touched upon how Kyle is just plain wrong. Choices is the key – it is what DD tells Harry in CoS – it is the choices that Harry and Tom Riddle made that make them different. Harry had a lousy life, as did Snape and Tom Riddle. They all made choices. The difference is that Snape made some bad ones and obviously so did Tom.
The biggest thing that everyone is forgetting is that for 2 reasons Harry was placed with his Aunt to live: (1) the blood charm that his mother's acts placed upon him and which keep him safe from Voldemort when he is at home; (2) he didn't want Harry to grow up with a big head. He was famous, but DD didn't want to see him grow up with that.
And the biggest one – the prophecy. As others have said. He's the Chosen One b/c he is, as JKR put it so eloquently, walking into the fight by his own choice, with his head held high, rathe than doing it because of some kind of destiny. Harry shrinks from all the attention and HATES it.
Also, as Gen X'r (b. 1971) I resent being called names. In fact, IMHO, my generation (at least at the older end) were still for the most part being raised the "old fashioned" way. My parents were NOT hippies. They are not Baby Boombers (B.1941 and 1943). Many of my friends were also raised the same way I was. I don't recall getting the "Special" talk at all. Frankly I think that was mostly the younger Gen X'rs and generations after. I'm proud of my Generation because I think we are the last ones who will probably turn back to conservatism because of our general skepticism and distrust of authority and our refusal to fit into any mold – hence the name "Gen X".
Situational Ethics = Generation "S" (statis)
I'm geting more than a little tired of people who claim it as a badge of honor that they have never watched and/or read Harry Potter/LOTR/Mary Poppins/whatever. They seem to feel like it makes them superior without realizing how arrogant it makes them sound. If they don't want to read or watch any of Harry Potter, fine. Different strokes for different folks. Just quit bragging about it. On a site dedicated to understanding and interpreting pop culture and art, far too many folks seem proud of their philistine behavior.
Reading is difficult Mega. LOL! I agree with you and CrisD about HP.
"Luke in the original movie particularly, and even the second two Stars Wars pics before Lucas went off the rails, was a nobody who became a somebody by both faith/trust, and self-sacrifice and control (particularly the latter two movies)."
Except that he's not. Luke starts off as a mopey adolescent who's sure (or at least REALLY hopeful) that he's meant for something better than his ordinary life. He is subsequently told that not only is he correct, but that his greatness is innate: He has special abilities that he was born with, a member of a warrior-elite based mainly on who his father was. Same as King Arthur, Hercules, Christ, Harry Potter, the whole lot of them. It's the way these stories go – rail against them if you want, but you're railing against the entire mythic tradition of the human race
(continued)
(continued)
"Contrary to Bryan Singer's view of Superman, btw, the character is not a Christ figure. Or redeemer. Rather he's the ordinary man (most of the time he's Clark Kent) who's embodiment of the American Dream gives him power (his costume is an idealized American flag)."
Fact is, Superman has been re-characterized so many times I don't think Singer's "Christ" version is any more or less valid than the others. However, the version your ascribing to – i.e. "Clark Kent is the 'real' guy, Superman is a costume" – is a pretty recent invention (much like "Batman is insane.")
For the majority of the character's (comic) "history," Superman was MUCH more Kryptonian than human. Pre-Crisis, he kept a museum in honor of his lost "real" culture in his Fortress of Solitude, had a miniature living Kryptonian city in a bottle he'd shrink down and visit in order to keep connected to his "real" culture, and prayed to the Kryptonian sun god Rao.
Well said! There is good to be found in the Potter world, but I think the author fell victim to haste and pressure (as a result of the popularity), sloppiness (as you said recently, her editors let her get away with far too much), and lack of planning (despite her protestations to the contrary.)
She labors over trivial (but novel) details and then lets something like you describe lay fallow. She asks us to indulge her silly things and great length and then doesn't follow through by making those aspects significant. I feel a little cheated, and I think the material is a little as well.
Never heard of them, wrong side of the country, had to find the Wikipedia article.
Cool, they have Bible references hidden on the packaging. Covert Christian capitalism, doing fine in Kalifornia right under the liberal noses, go to love that.
Perhaps the "wingers" aren't as concerned or outraged by gay characters as you think they are.
My objection was that she threw it out after the last book was published. Looked like pandering. If you're going to have a gay character, and it's not needed as some sort of "surprise" later in the story, just describe the character as such and get on with the story.
ABC likes to run through all the released movies in sequence prior to a new one, often in "dead times" like Saturday night, sometimes they will be schedule filler. "Quality time" with my mother is my excuse for seeing them, and the price is right.
Well, I like McDonalds (as well as steak). It may not be the best, but sometimes it hits the spot.
This is so Freking stupid, Ive read the HP books, and Enjoyed them to a point, I mean they aren't CS Lewis or Tolkien but there you have it.
The point is, people need to stop behaving so damn stupid when it comes to media which has absolutely nothing to do with them.
Sure, the Morals in Harry Potter are mushy and Generic, and the Bad Guys are pretty un-substantive, and theres a host of problems with the Story, but its not as if the Bad guys are Evil Christian Revolutionaries. The Book might not make any point regarding Religion or Ethics or Geopolitics, but its an F'ing childrens book.
And whats with you people and all this BS about Character arcs? Oh god, the Character doesnt change or learn anything of huge value…Oh, so Genuinely funny content, entertaining set pieces and actual creativity aren't good enough for you?
Its just entertainment, pure, and simple, get over it.
***SPOILER ALERT! If you ever plan on reading the books and want a surprise stop reading! You have been warned!***
Not sure if this was covered in the movies, but in one of the books it is brought out that Harry being the “Chosen One” was the result of a Schrodingers Cat sort of prophesy. It could have been Neville Longbottom. Voldemort killed Harry’s parents not Neville’s so Harry became the hero. Harry is not exceptional. He is lucky or unlucky depending on your point of view. Read the books.
I am not sure what has brought out the dislike of these movies. I say this, not having seen this latest film: While I wouldn’t put any of them up for an Oscar, they are generally good solid entertainment. They put tushes in seats with an old fashioned Good vs. Evil plot and very few gray areas. If you are not entertained, hey that’s cool. But calling them liberal or entitled just doesn’t seem right. I’ve read the whole series and cannot recall any instance of Socialism or even being soft on evil. Even those who deny that Volemort is a threat wouldn’t consider negotiating with him. Good grief, the world of Harry Potter has a prison in it that robs the criminals within of hope! Talk about tough on crime! The Death Penalty would be kinder!
Note: Much of the above information comes from the fact my wife reads/writes Harry Potter Fanfic. It’s trivia through ozmosis. I probably got some of it wrong.
Eh, I've always liked reading, but I HATED writing for most of high school, so much so that I despised my English classes. I really struggled with it, procrastinated constantly, and was excited to scrape out a B-. In my senior year, my English teacher taught us to develop a voice in personal narrative writing, and that's all it took to up my confidence and teach me that writing can be rewarding. I don't think I ever got less than a B on a paper in college (and I have two degrees in the liberal arts, so that's a lot of writing). I had English professors tell me I was one of the best writers in their class. I now consider my formal writing to be one of my strengths. All because of one "fun" assignment (and like Harry Potter, I don't think it was a completely substance-free task). I don't think it's a stretch for a child to learn to like reading in general as a result of Harry Potter.
I would agree with you though on Rowling's ability to know the strengths in her own work. I think Draco's story arc is too dark for a children's book to be focused on him. However, after seeing the HBP movie, which did a far better job developing him than the book did, I would have to agree that Rowling underused his character. The filmmakers gave Draco a lot more to do (and his actor is very talented), and his scenes ended up being some of the most memorable in the film for me. It would have been nice to see that kind of development on the page too. I don't know why Rowling didn't spend more time on it.
Yup. Harry is explicitly pointed to as a mediocre wizard who struggles in school, but he makes the right choices when it counts. Actually, the characters in the book pointed out as being particularly talented are Dumbledore, Snape, and Voldemort, and the former two start out using their abilities selfishly, while Voldemort makes all the wrong choices. Dumbledore and Snape are admired AFTER they start to show moral character and bravery.
Really, I think Harry is a great protagonist for a book that children can read. He doesn't really have a huge moral journey, because he's basically a good kid, with minor, forgiveable flaws, to begin with. When he cheats or cuts curfew, as high school kids often do, he gets punished, as he very well should. If he didn't have flaws, he'd be a crappy, unrealistic character. On the other hand, while there are other characters that I, as an adult, find more interesting, I'd be troubled if my elementary school students were reading a book centered on someone who once joined a terrorist organization to gain power, before thinking better of it and undergoing massive sacrifice and bouts of guilt to redeem himself. Redemption and character development are great, but so is age appropriateness.
Sounds like the moron's never seen Star Wars either. Precisely how much vanity does a kid who grows up on a third-rate moisture farm in the armpit of the universe have?
Not only does he hate it, but it drives a wedge between him and Ron in GoF. Ron is jealous because of everything that happens to Harry, and Harry is annoyed because he doesn't want this stuff to happen to him. He wants to just be a normal kid. But, as Optimus Prime said, fate rarely calls upon us at a time of our choosing.
The point is that it wasn't necessary to the story, so it wasn't dealt with in there. It adds a whole new dimension to his relationship with Grindelwald, but it's not something you have to make kids deal with.
It was more for those who are going to purchase the Harry Potter Encyclopedia and wish to know every detail about the universe and the characters.
I think the book version of Half Blood did a better job of displaying Harry's revulsion for the spell he used on Malfoy. Understandable though, considering that this far into the series they seem to expect that the audience is either composed of readers of the series or of people who at least follow the movies enough to know the essence of the characters. From his analysis, it doesn't appear that Mr. Smith falls into either of those categories.
It's fun, escapist fiction and great summer movie material, as is evidenced by the box office numbers in the midst of tough economic times. Is it Tolkien or Lewis? Of course not, but you'd be hard pressed to find many current authors that hold up to certified classics…that's what makes them classics.
Women hate Star Wars??? If you place yourself around the LIfetime Network Watching Types, that's your problem, pal.
As a fan of Star Wars AND Harry Potter, (and Star Trek for that matter) and a GIRL, I can honestly say I am disappointed that Harry's "wand" is now being compared to Luke's "Lightsaber". Thanks guys. *sigh*
They are both good stories.
To me, a life without reading isn't much a life at all. Tell me, does posting responses to internet blogs signify having a life? What does one need do in your mind in order to have a life? Does it have to be Hemingway (who by the way I find dreadfully dull) to have significance?
Kyle Smith is a LOUSY reviewer. Has he read any of the books?
Others have refuted Smith's claims smartly here; I needn't rephrase them.
The big question is WHY is it posted on this site? There are TONS of crappy reviews, idiotic op-eds and drivel that is attempted to be passed of as "investigative reporting" written every day. What made this piece so special that it "beared repeating" on Breitbart?
If you want a REAL "hero for the Entitled Generation", someone who has NOT had to conquer his own vanity, laziness and anger to get where he is, and someone who has been "cosseted" and told he is special from day one, someone who ignores ethics and someone who, when "(d)eploying his powers" finds that it " involves no more character or soul-searching than following a recipe", look no further than our President, Barack Hussein Obama.
Nancy Pelosi looks like she has not only EATEN Death, but asked for seconds.
Three words — read the books. Then we'll talk.
You should give the rest of the series a try. The themes get more complex as the series progresses and I think you'll find it worthwhile. Most of the books can be found in thrift stores these days so no risk to your wallet!
Another HP theme. Dumbledore knew Tom Riddle was bad news but did not do enough to correct him. Slughorn knew TR was researching dangerous and immoral stuff, but was too concerned about his own prestige that he did not turn the young man away from those studies. There were signs that the Taliban would be bad news but Clinton let BinLadin go.
Now the problems have gotten too big to ignore, and threaten both peace and freedom.
The terrorists attacks will hit the big cities. Dense populations, liberal concentrations. Will either sway them or reduce their number and make it easier for us to mitigate their damage.
Wow, no surprise that you're commenting on the themes of something you haven't even read.
Whiskey, you've got to stop with the nonsense that Harry Potter is written for a female audience, or provide some evidence for this outlandish claim. I know that you have issues with women, but you can't keep looking at every issue through misogynist lenses.
Reminds me of people who can always find a reason to mention that "they don't even own a television."
I totally agree. Sort of reminds me of The Very Hungry Caterpillar.
With no consideration for others who may be hungry or starving, author Eric Carle allows The Very Hungry Caterpillar to eat through chocolate cake, salami, swiss cheese, multiple plums and pears, as well as a whole slice of watermelon. And then what are the consequences for the caterpillar's selfish, gluttonous behavior? He is rewarded by becoming a beautiful butterfly. What is our culture coming to!!!
"deserves to have her butt kicked by a serious editor."
It isn't just her that you can say this about. Look at every current popular writer and series of the last ten years. For young adults its Harry Potter and Twilight, and adults its Dan Brown who couldn't write a good piece of prose if his life depended on it. There used to be an assumption by the literati that if it was popular than it was junk writing. Now it seems to have been proven by the most recent entries in pop-fiction to become a truism.
I know your generalizing, but Harry Potter is English, like from the U.K.
I'm female and a HUGE Star Wars fan. Not so much a Harry Potter fan, though I do watch the movies on DVD. I see some of your points but your conclusions are a bit too generalized.
You must be logged in to post a comment.