J. K. Rowlings and Harry Potter

You totally missed the point on Hagrid didn't you. Hagrid is a caretaker, and values all the animals under his care as much as he does his brother.

Yeah Pat; I read seven books and saw five movies, just like you, and because I don't agree with you on a character's motivation, I've "totally missed the point". If that helps you sleep at night, so be it.

I have two dogs and 1 cat, and over twenty birds, none of them are pets, they are part of my life, and creatures that I value as much as I do family.

As much as family? I can empathize with feeling like my dog feels like a member of the family, in the colloquial sense; I believe he has a soul and his behaviors create a wonderful personality. But if my sister and my dog were in the middle of the street and I had to swerve into one to avoid hitting the other, I would no longer have a dog.

I guess if you want to view the animals under his care as pets, that's your choice.

Y'know, I suspected that was the case when I formed the thought. Thanks so much for confirming my suspicions. Just so I'm clear, I have a choice as to how I perceive what I read, right? :rolleyes:

I've done numerous screenings of my independent short films. Some have included Q&A sessions afterwards. In more than one screening, an audience member has told me they could identify with the subtext or (in one case) the existential meaning of the work I'd created. And all that time I thought I was making funny cartoons.

My point is, those people got something out of my work that I hadn't necessarily intended. But it was there for them, and as such was every bit as valid as my opinion of what I'd done as it related to their perception of my work. It would have been incredibly crass for me to tell them "I guess you totally missed the point" simply because they saw something different in my work.

Although this thread is straying a little from the animation involved in the films it has brought up an interesting point on how people respond to storytelling or art or really anything in general.

One views/hears/experiences everything in relevance to their personal experience, environment, and education. This is something that should be kept in mind.

It's amazing how many different takes you can get on any given thing that you've experienced.

I've read all the books so far and unfortunately fell asleep tring to watch the first film all three times that I tried to see it.(have to try again soon)

I do find it annoying when people try to hijack something popular to push their personal agendas..
ie: Rock is the devil
blues is the devil
music makes people kill people
video games make people kill people
terrorists are everywhere so give up your rights.
blah blah blah.

I'm rambling though. just my 2 cents..

It's amazing how many different takes you can get on any given thing that you've experienced.

It like what cops say. You have 100 eye witnesses to and accident and you'll get 100 different stories.

I haven't read the last book, but I've liked all the rest and I've really liked the movies. I'll take away what I take away from the books and movies. Maybe it's the same as you, or you, or even you. Then again maybe not.

For me, the best part about Harry Potter is the huge sales numbers of the books. I know at this point most people reading them are adults, but that many kids reading and not playing Xbox, PS3, PSP, or Wii is a great thing.

Now I'm off to play Xbox. Read... I mean read. :D

Aloha,
the Ape

Making it black and white is entirely the point. I made a stark and obvious one way or the other situation so the emphasis was properly placed on priority. Not that it's traditional here to stay on point =) On with the unnecessary diversion:

I can't safely and fairly answer your question as no girl would get within 15 ft. of me let alone date me, so I won't talk out of me arse and say I know what it feels like to have someone and therefore find myself capable of an informed response. I'd probably distrust the feelings anyhow because I'm young and know how those sorts of feelings get me into trouble. But I'm inclined to respond nevertheless that I'd squish my girlfriend because family's always most important. Staying with what I was actually talking about, hitting someone in my scenario doesn't make them my pet (it would signify lower status of course), but hitting my pet sure means I don't value his life as much as my immediate human family members.

Still waiting on an answer. It's not to be contrary or pit convictions against each other. I've just never heard someone say something like that so I'm insanely curious about expanding my worldview. Do you truly value their lives equally?

I read where the filmmakers were going to eliminate Kreatcher from this most recent movie, and she let them know that they'd have storytelling problems later down the road if they did. It's good that she can have that level of involvement with the movies to keep them as true as possible to the books.

Pretty bold statement about Rowlings being more [socially conscious and responsible with lessons to our children] than Tolkien and Lewis. Phacker, Would you back that up with examples?

I would say the opposite, but curious about your thoughts.
Glad you liked Potter. The movies get better and better.

All the books you cite are products of their times. The reality is equality and non-discrimination were not part of the consciousness during the eras when Tolkien and Lewis were writing. It's usually counterproductive to hold media (books, movies, TV shows) to a modern standard when the prevailing attitudes of the day in which they were created were significantly different. Definitely the case when it comes to Lewis and Tolkien.

Although one could argue that one of the themes in the Lord of the Rings books is that even the smallest and most powerless among us can make a huge difference.

Before I begin, I'm glad to see that off-topic threads aren't locked. That's nice.
(I'm a regular on the gamespot.com forums, and they lock any off topic threads)

Anyway, I thought I'd say that while The Lord of the Rings didn't deal with the themes of racism, doesn't mean that the trilogy was thematically or morally void.

For one, Tolkien was an environmentalist before environmentalism was "cool."

Also, I really liked how he dealt with the Hobbits. Unlike a lot of fantasy epics, where the protagonist is mega-powerful, and spends his entire quest in search for glory...the true heroes of LotR, were humble and sincere. I kinda like that.

Anyway, I could probably say more...but I'm really bad at constructing long forum posts, so I'll just leave it at "I disagree with you that The Lord of the Rings doesn't have good values." :P

I never said Tolkien and CS Lewis had nothing to offer...they do, much. But they shirked their duties where JK didn't. She addressed discriminatin in a way neither of them had the guts to do.

Both Tolkien and Lewis lived and wrote years before civil rights became any kind of cultural movement, so slighting their works because they don't address an issue like discrimination is missing the point of their works.
Its not a question of lacking guts....it probably wasn't on their radar as a salient issue to address in their stories at the time.

An authors work is usually most relevant when read and considered in the time the work was written.

Lewis and Tolkien had both lived through world wars, they had a responsibility to tell us the truth. They had a responsibility to lead the yoth.

They had no such responsibility. Their only responsibility was to tell the stories they wanted to tell. That those stories would be enduring and widely read was not a foregone conclusion at the time of their creation. If social good comes out of them, so much the better, but claiming they had some inherent responsibility simply due to the circumstances of their times doesn't make sense.

Y'know, it is possible to enjoy the Potter books without finding fault in Tolkien's and Lewis' work... ;)

If it wasn't on JRR or CS's radar, who's fault is that, they probably weren't concerned with the rights of others.

That is just plain silly. It's like saying if you don't give a dollar to every homeless person you see, then you don't care about homelessness. What they were or weren't concerned about can't be discerned by looking at the works in question. You can certainly say they didn't address the issue, but that's not the same as saying they didn't care.

Not a huge CS Lewis fan, but Tolkien was my Potter growing up. I LOVED everything he wrote from 4th grade on. I still have vivid memories of hearing "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit..."

And, you have really missed the boat on Tolkien.

As other poster mentioned, the theme of "superior" and "inferior" race was threaded throughtout the entire series. Sam ends up being the hero, a gardener and the "lowest" character of the book. And then of course "all that is gold does not glitter" ... Don't judge peope by their appearances. Then there's the ongoing fight between Elf and Dwarf. He teaches us people can find friendship even with enemies.

But what about other lessons? the themes of loyalty, fellowship, sacrifice, struggle, individual strengths and weakness, and lastly personal growth.

If anything, the lesson has changed - Tolkien's lesson was how to act - selflessly, honestly, to the best of one's ability.

Not to take too much away from JKR, but the one thing she's accused of is racism by only having a smattering of diverse characters. It's very white/christian centric. Don't get me wrong, I love HP but I totally disagree with your assessment of Tolkien.

I like Harry Potter and I like Tolkien. A lot. Rowling has done exceptionally well with her series (even though I found the last book unconvincingly convoluted in places) - but honestly, "nazi wizards are bad" isn't something I'd put above the moral message Tolkien offers in his works.

What exactly is it Tolkien offered you?

A more than well thought-out, realistic world with believable characters, grim, grimy and gritty realism, intense episodes of desperation and hopelessness, with moments of epic grandeur and glory, but also warm cozyness and refreshingly rustic, down-to-earth warmth and good-hearted humour. Tolkien still offers me: fond childhood memories of hearing those things for the first time and a world so big that as a kid I could hardly wrap my budding sense of fictional realism around it - in short: a story.
And so does Rowling, in that great tradition.

I

don't know who accuses her of that. But it's unwarranted. Tolkien may have had lessons, but through his books we learned that some races were without merit.

Heh, but there's a message in that too!

You'll always eventually encounter someone without merit. There's always going to be people that simply do not live up what our ideals are.
Having races or characters without merit can be seen as an acknowledgement of that reality.

Remember this basic truth about all fiction: they are parables or allegories, NOT mirrors of reality. A story cannot be all things to all people, because its serves its overall message first. The exclusive of a thing does not mean the dimissal of it by the author, its simply something that doesn't need or serve addressing in the story.
Its a story first, anything else is tacked on.

For example: in the nursery rhyme: Little Miss Muffet, do we need to know the Spider's name is Phil, and that he attended Havard with the intent of becoming an accountant. His brother Ramone fell into a bad crowd, got irradiated and bit some kid named Peter, and.......

Does ANY of that serve the story?
Nope, it makes the story a mess.
Having kinder gentler Orcs in the LOTR doesn't serve the story, nor does acknowledging they are not "all bad". They serve as an evil foil and that is their purpose in the tale--anything else is confusing the issue.
If Rowling can work sympathetic sensibilities into all her characters AND weave a entertaining take, good on her. Its her story to tell, not anyone elses.

Does it make her a better writer? Depends who you ask, right? Thing is, "better" is a qualification that only stands with the individual observer, which is like a lot of things in life.

No author has that defined responsibility.

I quite agree, and I'm glad to see you've backed off your early declarative statement on the point:

Lewis and Tolkien... had a responsibility to tell us the truth. They had a responsibility to lead the yoth.

maybe they aren't the harbingers of truth we all felt their were when we were sixteen.

Reminds me of one of my favorite bumper stickers:

"Hire a teenager - while they still know everything."

>> JK never writes off another race or animal.

I disagree. There's one "race" that is always considered slow on the uptake. They're written of as selfish, greedy, gluttonous, jealous, and helpless - Muggles. She might offer someone (Mr. Weasley) being sympathetic or interested in them, but they're shown to be "inferior" in many ways. And what kid comes away saying, "I'm proud to be a muggle". Rather, they really REALLY wish they were a wizard.

Orcs, and the other nasties were corrupted, mutilated elves created (not born) to be evil minions. I think Tolkien went out of his way to make them evil and without any good.

An author's work is usually most relevant when read and considered in the time the work was written.

No it isn't. [. . .] the powers in upholding their works over the years actually relies on their ability to convey their attitudes to their readers.

That sounds like agreement, because the readers in charge of "upholding" would be the initial readers, or readers in the time the work came out. If you don't hit the mark with them there's no one to perpetuate the story and all that it includes -- so how you relate to that time when you first release the work seems pretty important.

There is a letter to the editor in Newsweek that talks about this very thing, wish I had it with me now. Also Rowling was on Dateline this past weekend and I remeber her fielding some questions about this subject as well and I am sorry I can not remember the details.

The thing I do remeber is that the story arc of Harry Potter was set from the very beginning. She know seventeen years ago how this seven book series was going to end and had a good idea of the path she would be taking out through.

As I understand it Tolken did much the same thing, the journey was in his head and we went along on trip.

As for all that other stuff I am not sure about any of it but for me it is not what is holding my interest with these authors works.

Just thought I would chime in on this marathon posting.

Another wonderful Young Adult series is Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials starting with "The Golden Compass" -- just made into a movie and it looks fantastic.

the Golden Compass

Definitely an interesting read. Different lessons but a caring compassionate set of books with a unique look at religion. It's written at a higher level than HP, but appeals to both adults and kids. They even made a play of it in London. Not sure how it did, but the movie looks awesome!!!

Interesting discussion on JKR and racism. This is an articulate bunch who take HP quite seriously. If you have the time, it's an interesting read and there's 2 podcasts (Parts 1 & 2) as well as lengthy threads that discuss racism in the books and JKR's possible "disconscious racism".

I never knew his name was Phil or that he attended Harvard, or about his brother Ramone. I think it would have made a difference to me. But I see your point also. Never said she was a better writer, just that it seems she was more socially responsible to me.

Of course, the stuff about little Miss Muffet is tacked on.....its irrelevant to the story!

Frankly, I don't see Rowling as being at all socially responsible--she's just entertaining is all. If there's an aim outside of entertainment that you are picking up, its YOU that is picking it up--which is dandy.

That's the purview of an audience anyway, to get out of a thing what they CAN get out of it. Whether or not those things are actually there, doesn't really matter, because the significance (like beauty) lies in the eyes of the beholder.

>> Loyalty, fellowship, sacrifice...those are all arguments and commercials for joining the army.

And what about Harry's Mother? (sacrifice) ... Ron, Harry & Hermione (fellowship) ... Harry and Dumbledore (loyalty, particularly in Chamber of Secrets). These are all valuable lessons that both authors touch on time and again. I don't think it's a bad thing. But, point taken regarding armies as both books end in war, perhaps glorify it. Signs of the times, no?

>> As a "horti" and a gardener by trade I feel about this statement like the cavemen in the Geico ads feel.

Fair enough, but "class" issues run through Tolkien (and HP) and like it or not Sam's character was meant to be "lower class". His occupation was a gardener and he was a "servant" of Frodo's. No other character had a "job". His speech, education, and attitude was different than the others, not unlike Dobby and the hous elves. Both writers, imo, use speech and education to help define their characters. Maybe it's a British thing?

We'll have to agree to disagree on the race within the HP series as being an issue or not. Majority of the main characters are white males and the rest plays like a Benneton ad. I don't think it has to be fixed or made PC, but I do see it as a flaw since race is the main focus on the rest of the book.

Adding one last link ..

Harry Potter and the Complicated Identity Politics

But Rowling's ideology cannot simply be described as anti-racist, for as strongly as she condemns racially-motivated violence, Harry Potter remains a classic work of fantasy. And fantasy is a literary genre intent, above almost all else, on the reassuring order of classification and categorization, of blood lines and inheritances.

Though we're meant to abhor Voldemort's obsession with "pure" blood lines, father-to-son inheritances are crucial to fulfilling Harry's destiny as savior of the magical community. The "Deathly Hallows" referred to in the title of the seventh book are three medieval magical objects made by pureblood brothers and thought to allow their owners to avoid death. Toward the end of the book, Harry learns he is the rightful heir to one of the hallows and can access the two others as well. So the boy wizard tasked with fighting the pureblood ideology is himself a descendent of one of the most prestigious families in magical history. The plot device is too conventional to be ironic, and fits squarely within the fantasy tradition of ascribing high-born histories to even the most humble heroes. Think of Aragorn in J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings.