Harry Potter and the Cheated Readers

[tactic]

Originally posted by OzyBoy
Whats the big deal with harry potter anyway, i haven't read a book, seen a movie or anything and i don't intend on either. It's just hype.

Well J.K. Rowling has been writing her books really well. If you start from book one, and read through the book 6, you will understand the book as you keep reading and it happens to give you alot of images as you read it. It's why her books are good, not because she wrote 6 of them now.

 

[naoi deag se deag]

Originally posted by The_Shezzler
People have the right to voice their own opinions....Its a pity they dont do it.

Shezz

Originally posted by The_Shezzler
Nonsense.

Ha ha?

 

[tactic]

Originally posted by The_Shezzler
Nonsense.

You gotta' ask one of the biggest Harry Potter fans, Shezz.. I'm not a big fan nor have i even read the latest book or anything.

 

[Nocturnal]

Originally posted by The_Shezzler
Todays novelists (i say that in the lightest sense of the word) are scared, scared of what others will think, scared that they will have written and put their time and effort into - will be declined by the publishers - if they feel and speak from their heart and mind.

That's probably part of it. But you've got to remember the publishers' goal: money.

The real problem is the "couch potato." Children are being brought up in a world of superficiality. How much television do kids watch?

http://www.csun.edu/~vceed002/health/docs/tv&health.html

II CHILDREN

Approximate number of studies examining TV's effects on children: 4,000
Number of minutes per week that parents spend in meaningful
conversation with their children: 3.5
Number of minutes per week that the average child watches television: 1,680
Percentage of day care centers that use TV during a typical day: 70
Percentage of parents who would like to limit their children's TV watching: 73
Percentage of 4-6 year-olds who, when asked to choose between watching TV
and spending time with their fathers, preferred television: 54
Hours per year the average American youth spends in school: 900 hours
Hours per year the average American youth watches television: 1500

Number of 30-second TV commercials seen in a year by an average child: 20,000

Chidlren today are not learning how to grow up or what it is to be human, they are learning how to replace their minds with vacuums. Even when teachers have the chance to teach them, they are more concerned with simply teaching them to read then teaching them to read literature.

 

[Luveno]

What Pook is saying applies not only to literature, but more importantly to music as well.

It has become a "cover culture", meaning that every song made for the last 20 years has just been a rehash of another song that came out before or during that period. There is no new music.

Also, since music is a business and not art, the executives want to distribute and sign the most marketable and trendy "artists", without thought for the originality of music. Hiphop is a barren wasteland nowadays because of this. Metal and rock are not much better.

Commerce has a way of beating a horse to death.

There is freedom of expression provided that it makes someone else a profit. Otherwise, the men who hold the microphones won't let you speak.

 

[tactic]

Originally posted by GodsGiftToWomen
I've read the first five.

I'm gonna continue reading the 6th tonight. At first I thought these books are g@y and for little kids but my friend got me into it. Once I started reading it's amazing how cool the books are. Harry Potter rocks.

Yeah true. It's like people assume this book to be some kind of boring stuff and for little kids because of the cover and the storyline, but to be honest, i learned alot of values from reading it. It teaches you life lessons, not just some kiddie stuff. Why do you think even adults read it? It's also translated into different languages too.

 

[Lifeforce]

I find it amusing with all these people who read fancy titles from all the literal ages and go ahhh ohhh åhhh.. it's soooo good. Look at me, I have read the Devine Comedy.

In fact most of the people who indulge in reading this seem to do it to seem intellectual or superior. Of course they will lie to themselves and say they love these books. Much like drinking beer. Let's face it, beer tastes like ****. But it's manly to drink so every man must pretend he likes to drink beer.

Well here is a news for you, shakespeare sucks! It's boring to read, too much poetic nonsense and the characters are so cardboard they can become. If I could meet him, I'd shove his collective work I was forced to read up his butt.

But wait, it seems to work the same way with shakespeare as it does with harry potter. It's not allowed to critizice.

. Either I have not read shakespheare
or I am too stupid to understand the endless poetic nonsense
or I am a hater because I don't know how to write stuff like it.

I am a realist, I don't see the funny stuff with a midsummer night dream. And Hamlet could be written in 1 page if he wouldn't be so damn undescive.

The point is, the society is moving forward, so is the style of literature. It's evolving. I don't see the reason to be all conservative and hiding in the past. If many people like Harry Potter someone has written a book which people like to read. That's the point of the books. It's up to the individual to like it or not.

 

[King of You]

all i have to say is harry potter sucks ass.

 

[Yotsuya-san]

Originally posted by Pook

As I've gotten older, I've realized most sci-fi is incredibly bad. The genre began in the pulp thirties where people would buy anything that had a rocketship on the cover.

The audience for Sci-Fi have always complained that they are not taken seriously in literature (which isn't true, there is Farehiet 451, 1984, Brave New World). But most works don't. This isn't because of some grand conspiracy but because of the possibility the audience does not allow itself to explore: that the works can not meet such quality. As time passes, the flaws of these older works grow. Asimov is incredibly dated today, and his works like the Foundation series are full of cliches and lack the human element. Heinlen, too, suffers this problem of overatedness. Heinlen is primarily a children's author, and wrote books like 'Stranger in a Strange Land' to escape from that mold, filling it with rants about religion and sex. The point is that these 'golden works' are not passing the test of time and are becoming more ridiculous.

No SF author professes to write an accurate depiction of the future. Asimov, Heinlein and Arthur C. Clarke always acknowledged that they wrote their stories based on the scientific knowledge available during the time. So as time went by and science progressed, Asimov, especially retconned a lot of things in his Foundation/Robot/Empire universe to correspond with breakthroughs and debunkments in science. As far as the human element, everything in moderation. In my science fiction,I prefer more focus on the science, and less on soap opera and melodrama.

 

[penkitten]

i read to my kids to keep them excited in learning to read, since they are young. i love to watch them trying to imagine whatever i am reading.
my kids have to stay interested or they will get up and leave the room. they hate boring books.
they enjoy things like :
where the red fern grows
judy blume's fudge series
anything star wars
harry potter
unfortunate events series
some disney stuff too

they do not enjoy pedifile books such as peter pan, with a gay guy who keeps little boys in a never land ( sounds like micheal jackson huh?) that writer was the biggest well known pedifile of his day. its a classic tale. bs!

i dont care if harry potter is wonderful or not. at least it has some values and morals in it. and at least it keeps them off the tv and playstation .

 

[Lifeforce]

Originally posted by The_Shezzler
To each his own...

I personally Do Not Like Modern Fiction - utter rubbish

There are a few gems that have survived in this dark age of literature - a Life of Pi - decent read.

Lifeforce - You have a narrow minded view on literature and life in general

I like the taste of beer - otherwise i wouldnt drink it, i like reading classic novels otherwise i wouldnt read them - i like fcuking women otherwise id fcuk men - that ok?

It dosnt matter what anyone thinks - or what anyone says - everyone has their own opinions and will do what please them.

Nah, I don't really think so. 99% of all people are lost and don't know what to do with their lives. So they do stuff they think a person should be doing. Perhaps reading the classics because they become intellectual if they do, or go out partying 3 times per week so they are hip and cool, or have sex with differnet woman every weekend so they may be don juans and stroke their egos, all to feed the illusion they are living so they can mask their insecurity and believe they are just an inch better than everybody else because they do this thing.

For example, In sweden the german theme music to the cartoon "Schnappi" is very popular. The theme is **** and yet everyone live in a masspsykosis were they are convinced it is cool to listen to schnappi. In a few months it will blow over and people who are still listening to schnappi will be considered to be geeks and not following the trends.

Or we can look at this board, all these newbies coming in here and imitating what they think a don juan is. It's everything from Zeb Macahan to Hitch. I don't doubt if a leading seducer would wear a hangmans rope around his neck because it shows the girl he is not afraid of death, then alot of people would start doing that.

Men and women are the same, we are so attached to our role that we are afraid we will loose our personality if we change it. This is why so many men are against feminists. I mean, how hard is it to be the leader of a pack of men. All you have to do is to act really stereotypical and with no fear and they'll imitate you believeing they will rise in value of being around a real man. = better chance of getting laid.

So in short, people don't do what they like, they do what they think they should be doing. They do stuff to either avoid tainting their value or to raise their own value. All in all to feed the ego and to have a better chance of spreading the genes.

 

[Spirit Fingers]

Pook, I like most of your other posts, so it's a shame you've kind of gone off the deep end with your conservatism here. There are no conspiracy theories, people who make movies are not trying to program us with an agenda. They're just trying to make money, and sometimes they put AFC messages in their movies because that's what people want to hear.

Be a little more open minded. Just because other people do not share your taste in literature does not make their literature any less worthwhile. It's all subjective. Similarly, if someone wants to be gay, then it's their life, no need to judge them. Live, and let live.

-Dan

 

[InsidiousNstinct]

Why's everyone gotta make stuff complicated? Whatever happened to just reading the playboy articles...

 

[tactic]

Originally posted by Lifeforce
I find it amusing with all these people who read fancy titles from all the literal ages and go ahhh ohhh ?hh.. it's soooo good. Look at me, I have read the Devine Comedy.

In fact most of the people who indulge in reading this seem to do it to seem intellectual or superior. Of course they will lie to themselves and say they love these books. Much like drinking beer. Let's face it, beer tastes like ****. But it's manly to drink so every man must pretend he likes to drink beer.

Well here is a news for you, shakespeare sucks! It's boring to read, too much poetic nonsense and the characters are so cardboard they can become. If I could meet him, I'd shove his collective work I was forced to read up his butt.

But wait, it seems to work the same way with shakespeare as it does with harry potter. It's not allowed to critizice.

. Either I have not read shakespheare
or I am too stupid to understand the endless poetic nonsense
or I am a hater because I don't know how to write stuff like it.

I am a realist, I don't see the funny stuff with a midsummer night dream. And Hamlet could be written in 1 page if he wouldn't be so damn undescive.

The point is, the society is moving forward, so is the style of literature. It's evolving. I don't see the reason to be all conservative and hiding in the past. If many people like Harry Potter someone has written a book which people like to read. That's the point of the books. It's up to the individual to like it or not.

I don't mind if anyone critized about a book. It's an opinion, so it means it's not a fact. It's what we believe. At least I'm not trying to go against anyone who is critisizing for a good reason. I just don't like people critisizing just by judging the titles or who go by other people's words to suck it up and act like they're not bookworms.

 

[Pook]

The original post wasn't about literature losing its art to modernity. The original post is about how feminism and other bizzare sexual ideaologies made their way into Law. My answer was that they wormed their way through the Humanities. As a result, the Humanities are a total wasteland. This affects even many entertainment realms, especially the publishing industry.

Let us say there is a 'Gay Literature' Class (actually, quite common on most universities). This is wrong not because of an anti-gay viewpoint, but wrong because it

A) Cherry picks from the works and elevates fourth rate authors/poets to first rate status.

B) Removes opportunity for class time to study true works

C) Places Humanities to be classified by a status of politics rather than art/nature.

Why not leave the Humanities alone? Why this post-modern need to politicize it? Because Humanities is full of sexuality (not eroticism, but sexuality meaning genders). Every poet sings to a muse.

Marriage is facing a train-wreck in several countries, including America. Some people are asking how this came about, why this 'genderless' viewpoint came about. One of the main pillars in its way were the Humanities, as they are filled with gender.

(It appears there is an innate need for myth in youth. Every culture has its myths. But since the Humanities are gone, where did the myths go? Many of them have gone into video games, where each video game represents some masculine thrust, from the warrior saving the princess, to killing dragons, to saving the world from aliens, to being a general guiding armies to victory, the primary material most current video games seem to base their content on is myth.)

In America, there has been a break-up of the News Media. Newspapers and television news is declining. Television for young males is declining. The movie sales (at least in America) are probably beginning to slide.

So it is a likely scenario that a break-up could occur in the publishing industry.

Some said I have gone off the deep end with conservatism. But the issues raised here have no conservatism in them. If politics tried to put in 'traditional values' on the Humanities, I'd be just as opposed to that too. Why? Because Humanities is not supposed to be a political football.

The rampant leftist Camille Paglia expresses her rage at the destruction of the Humanities every chance she gets.

To establish itself as a discipline and quickly prove its own academic legitimacy in the '70s, campus feminism became addicted to theory, which took two principal forms. The first, derived from Kate Millett's Sexual Politics (1970), reduced complex artworks to their political content and attacked famous male artists and authors for their alleged sexism. That atrocious book, which appeared while I was a graduate student, drove every talented, young, intellectual woman I knew away from the women's movement. Millett, who is responsible for the current eclipse of D.H. Lawrence, Ernest Hemingway, and Henry Miller in the college curriculum, did enormous damage to American cultural life. She made vandalism chic.
The second major theoretical style adopted by campus feminism was a French import, derived from the highly abstruse and convoluted deconstruction and poststructuralism. These approaches invaded literature departments in the 1970s and later spread to other fields in the humanities. While the practitioners of French theory professed leftist and even Marxist values, they had little connection to actual politics and none whatever to ordinary people, who were condescended to and excluded by theorists' elitist jargon. Why the shifty, cynical, and verbose psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan -- a classic white, European male -- became the idol of so many credulous Anglo-American feminists remains a mystery. Simple careerism may explain it: From the late 1970s through the 1980s, attaching oneself to feminism or to French theory guaranteed employment, promotion, and, at the top, huge financial rewards. The academic marketplace reinforced cutthroat ambition and herd behavior, eventually seriously compromising the direct, sympathetic study of literature and art that should be the humanities' proper mission.

Also, don't forget that no-fault divorce was first signed into law in America by Ronald Reagan. This is an issue much deeper than politics.

Why should anyone care?

Most people are willing to give Caesar his due. When people admit they do not understand higher mathematics, they do not say, "Mathematics is the sucky!!!11" When people admit they do not understand the quirks of DNA decoding, they do not say, "Genetics is stupid stuff!" Everyone acknoledges the benifets mathematics, science, and other fields has done. But the same is not applied to the Humanities.

Lifeforce gives us the perfect example of this:

I find it amusing with all these people who read fancy titles from all the literal ages and go ahhh ohhh åhhh.. it's soooo good. Look at me, I have read the Devine Comedy.

In fact most of the people who indulge in reading this seem to do it to seem intellectual or superior. Of course they will lie to themselves and say they love these books. Much like drinking beer. Let's face it, beer tastes like ****. But it's manly to drink so every man must pretend he likes to drink beer.

Well here is a news for you, shakespeare sucks! It's boring to read, too much poetic nonsense and the characters are so cardboard they can become. If I could meet him, I'd shove his collective work I was forced to read up his butt.

Refuting this would be as easy as shooting fish in the barrel. But notice the tone. According to those like-minded, Humanities has no purpose except to give self-proclaimed intellectuals reason to think themselves importance. It has no connection to society, to life, or anything else. (And apparently if Lifeforce didn't enjoy it means that no one else *really* can. And those who say they do, *must* be telling a lie. To Lifeforce, there appears to be no other possibility.)

Any investigation into the education of a 'great person' always refutes this. Any investigation into the creation of major laws and constitutions refutes this. Any investigation in entertainment, including the 'simple ones' of today, refutes it. By denying the reality of influence Humanities has on people and society, one becomes blind to the good it produces and to the bad. While it is true that academic 'gender studies' has lost a lot of its grip on the Humanities, what is not realized is that it was the 'passageway' where these 'gender studies' made their way into other academic arenas, including law.

If there is a scientific study on the differences between men and women, we know there is political pressure against such a study, as there are agendas that push that there are no innate differences with the genders. Thankfully, the integrity of the science field is above politics. This is not the same with the Humanities.

Hearing "I like some of your posts, Pook, but WTF is with this thread?" just highlights the issue. Have you noticed most 'how-to-get-women' sites have issued their own hypothesis on the Women-Problem? (It's not just nature, but the non-nature of the issue. Why are men today so effeminite? Why are girls becoming so ungirly? Why are the marriage laws so out of whack?) Some have gone about the issue scientifically, often with a pseudo-evolutionary context. Others look at it politically. Their answers never satisfied me. So on my own searching, along with real observations, I found a lot of answers in the Humanities. My posts quote literature and quotes from 'great people' not for ornamentation but because they are the seed that sprouted the post in the first place. Auxley realized this enough for his "Brave New World" book to include the 'savage', who was an alien to the crazy cloning bizzaro-world he made to frantically read literature in order to make some understanding.

"It is good for kids to read Harry Potter because it makes them read more, rather than watch TV or play video games."

Then it is good for kids to consume fast food since it takes them away from sweets and restaurants.

There is a quality to everything. There exists some really good TV (though none, if any, seems to air on TV these days). There exists some really bad TV. There are well made video games and bad made video games.

And there are good books and bad books. Like the body reacts to food, so is the same with our minds. Junk in, junk out. Just as some parents don't mind feeding their kids junk food, just as many don't mind feeding their kids junk books.

Harry Potter is a fine children's book. But if it is so good, then why the tnsunami of hype and news coverage? The answer of couse is that it is not that good, and that you are happily being used by marketing companies and your children dupes of consumerism. I suspect that the hoopla over the first Harry Potter book was a bit manufactured (because many elements of the publishing industry are agenda driven). Honestly, there is little to nothing I can see in Harry Potter warrant the attention or praise to it.

Too many people only see this through a prism of 'Elitist Intelellectual Snobs' frowns on 'good loving children happy' Harry Potter book. Have you ever considered that the parents may be the 'elitist snobs' who do not dare admit the possibility that their kids 'Harry Potter' will not increase their reading ability just as a comic book won't? This is why the thread is not called 'Harry Potter and the Vain Intellectualists' but rather 'Harry Potter and the Cheater Reader'. Its a shame that a generation will be raised in a Harry Potter 'bubble' thinking they are reading 'great writing', 'great imagination', and 'great saga' where the truth is they are pawns of 'great marketing', 'great salesmanship' and 'great hype'.

 

[cmk85]

Quote

Only a few centuries ago, to be deemed an 'educated man', one had to have the very basics of literature. What was considered 'easy literature' back then? Speeches of Cicero were taught to twelve year olds. Illiad and Odessey (the original works, not summaries) taught to thirteen year olds. Shakespeare and poetry taught to fifteen year olds. At the time of the American Revolution, most households contained at least two books: the Bible (which is a pillar of literature itself regardless of the religious content) and the works of Shakespeare. Legal works like the Constitution, Paine's essays, and the Federalist Papers could be easily read and understood by most of the voting public back then. The point is that what is considered 'deep works' today like Shakespeare, Locke, Bible, Roman speeches, were actually very common back then. This is how the poetic rhetoric in the Declaration of Independence or other works of that time got written.
-------------------------------------------------




First of all excuse me. For my bad English.
I think that the population of today isn’t less intelligent. We are gathering information in a different way. A few centuries ago average children only had 2 or 3 teachers (Father, Mother and the Preast) The first thing they learned those children was that everything what stood in those books( Bible, Shakespeare and the rest ) was the truth. Today we have so much more access to information (library internet books and lot off different teachers) Those people all give there view on life, this is the same reason why religion in Western countries is declining. Because people have more access to information they can simple pick the opinion off a guy they believe. And that doesn’t have to be a parent, teacher or religion.

This first time this occurred in modern history was in 50’s and 60’s. Where a lot off young people got in a fight with there parents because they where more influenced by a song or speech from Elvis, Bob Dylan or Malcolm. I think this was great because old teachings where criticized. Where there parents simply accepted that the bible and Shakespeare was right. There Children thought about what them was taught then compared it with what they learned from somebody else and made there own conclusions.

It isn’t that strange that today’s media simply pushes an opinion on us. And we got a lot off opinions pushed on us trough TV, internet, Papers etc etc. This hasn’t have to be a bad thing. Because most people who have an interest, for example literature. First read the commercial works that everybody likes and when they want to read more there are going to look for more. And go from Harry Potter to Shakespeare. It took them a’ lot longer to get to this stage of knowledge but I think in the end they understand Shakespeare a lot better then there parents. Because they just learned it without thinking and question it.

In today’s Schools a lot off smart people are found in lower educations. Why is this occurring? Because those people are getting so much knowledge from internet, discovery channel, Books etc etc. They can seriously question the things a teachers is teaching and they can discuss it with a teacher. This way of learning takes a lot longer then to simply accepted what is told you.



A lot off people who follow an education on higher level are just naïve. They just believe everything what is told them. It’s a great way to learn to just assume that the teacher is always right and never question his reasons. Feminists are born in the same way. Because they had this information they followed there own path. Instead of the one there household mother followed. Even a lot off famous people used to be social outcasts so they had find there own way to succeed because nobody wanted to teach them. And because they learned from a lot off different people (rock stars, writers, politicians) instead of just there mom, dad and friends. They tried al lot more things made a lot off mistakes and found there own successful pads. It’s a lot like the way to becoming a DJ

 

[Revolution_AM]

The original post is about how feminism and other bizzare sexual ideaologies made their way into Law.

Feminism isn't a "bizarre sexual ideology." By using a blanket term like feminism or feminist for a very specific set of agendas or people, you not only do injustice to the word but you also reveal your sledgehammer-like lack of nuance.

As the quote goes, "feminism is the radical notion that women are people." It examines the roles of sex and gender in the social order, to see which ones are socially-constructed (and hence most likely illegitimate).

Don't use feminism as the generic "evil" at the root of society's problems.

You also fail to elaborate as to why marriage is "facing a trainwreck:" is it those nasty, marriage-wrecking feminists, or those confused and evil homosexuals? Is it the act of marrying, or is it the state of being married that's under assault? What if all these marriages ending in divorce weren't good marriages after all, and would have done more damage than good if they had stayed in them? Isn't then the concern that people aren't making good decisions in who they should marry, rather than some foreign force is coming in and shattering these social and legal bonds?

One of the biggest stressors on marriage does not come from the Literature Departments in Universities, or student rallies in Berkely, but from their workplaces. American workers are working far longer hours for far less pay and with far less benefits (and much more job insecurity) than they did 35 years ago. The idea of one of the spouses staying at home just isn't an option anymore. This changes the dynamic of the home, especially for the children. I'd argue it's this dynamic that is the fault of the decline of the "traditional" family in America, not women standing up for themselves, or men not knowing how to change their car's oil.

 

[Lifeforce]

My point dear Pook was to clarify that there are many different areas which are not allowed to be critisice because society think they are great works.

If you don't like Shakespeare then something is wrong with you. It's the same with JKK rowling, if you don't like harry potter, something is wrong with you.


Dear pook, you seem to be a little high on yourself, thinking YOUR values are the only one which exist. No matter what you say, it's YOUR opinion that JKK rowlings books are poor fiction, written poorly or have a poor storyline. Other people will disagree on this. I like the books even if I recognize alot of the things inside the book from other sources. I like the books even if I was very much against them when I began reading them. This doesn't mean they are great books, it means I and alot of other people think they are great books.

/And apparently if Pook didn't enjoy it means that no one else *really* can. And those who say they do, *must not* realize it is junk fiction. To Pook, there appears to be no other possibility./

See how I twisted that around.

 

[il_duce]

You're missing the point Lifeforce. He already stated several times that fiction such as Harry Potter is derivative. It is all based upon myth and legend, on stories from the Bible, for example. Sure, most fiction is derivative, hell, most art is. Everything draws inspiration from somewhere.

But the difference between a JK Rowling and a Shakespeare is HUGE. No matter how many Harry Potter books they sell, they still won't make 1% of the impact that Shakespeare made on our cultural aesthetic. Simple literary devices such as the similie and metaphor were practically invented by Shakespeare. Modern theatre, again, practically invented by Shakespeare. Without Shakespeares work, there is really no telling what today's literature, or art, in general, would be like. The man was an absolute genius.

It's alright if you don't personally have a taste for his work, but it is plain ignorant to call Shakespeare irrelevent, or even compare it to stuff like Harry Potter. That's almost like saying Christianity had no effect on the politics of the Western World.

 

[naoi deag se deag]

I don't think we should belittle the point that these books make children read, however simplistic it may sound. Kids may have read the classics long ago at an age where they're still reading Matt Christopher today, but you gotta start somewhere and America's public schools certainly aren't helping instill any kind of drive in them. Going off of the book Tom Brown's Schooldays, a semi-fictional account of author Thomas Hughes' days at Rugby School in the 1830s, kids didn't like reading then either. The schools inspired them in a way that we don't have today, and if Harry Potter can somehow step into part of that role, then it should be lauded rather than decried.

I also know that the translation of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone into Irish has helped young Gaeilgeoiri stay interested in a language whose cultural backbone has largely been smashed by an inept education system. Doubtless the translation into other less-international languages has helped children with those. So if it saves the Irish language I'll love it forever.