Tangent- you should have known, however, that jumping into the thread and making a statement like that, no matter how valid it may be for your worldview, was going to draw some fire. I mean, the thread was specifically designed to draw the attentions of the Wiccan/pagan folks here on the SDMB.
Tristan- who is pagan, but not much on actual spellworking. explanations gladly given.
Maybe she is saying that morality exists outside of rules, laws and social conventions? Surely morality isn’t dictated by writing on paper?
So does James Bond. In fact, the police officer on the outer who breaks all the rules to catch the villian is so common that it has become cliche. Criticise her writing all you want, but I cannot believe that some people can be so shocked that Harry Potter… gasp… lies about stuff. Dear me, and I’m sure the folks doing the jumping up and down, (like yourself) are such pious chaps who never do a thing wrong.
There’s only been one fictional character who I can think of who only ever stuck to the rules and that’s Jesus. And that’s quite possibly because he created the rules.
Two problems with this statement. First off, Jesus is not a fictional character. It may be that some or all of the stories about him are fictional; that’s a subject for Great Debates. But if nothing else, there certainly was a man named Jesus who attracted followers and taught about religion. Secondly, he hardly “stuck to the rules”, if the Gospels are to be believed on this count (and there aren’t any competing accounts to say otherwise). You don’t get crucified for “sticking to the rules”.
Yeah, I had always assumed that she had studied historical folklore and so on and done her homework–that’s obvious enough. It was just that this guy seemed to feel that he was actually quoting her as saying that Wiccans thought she was Wiccan too, and that was of course so weird that I just had to post it. I think now I’m going to have to go find this guy’s book and try to find his ‘quote’ to find a source!
(I’m a librarian and tend to follow HP criticism/hype fairly closely, even though I’m not a big fan myself. IMO HP’s reason for existence is to a) get kids reading at all and b) so that I can convert them to better fantasy writers than Rowling.)
King Arthur, in the context of the stories told w/- Lancelot et al is a fictional character, although he is believed to have actually existed as a real person. Ditto with Jesus.
OK - there you are. How can HP be criticised for ignoring the rules when even Jesus didn’t listen to them? 
I mean, come on people, it’s not like we’re talking about cutting in line at the cafeteria or something. Voldemort is portrayed as a seriously evil guy. Criticising Harry for breaking the rules is akin to criticising someone who (say) steals a gun to murder Hitler.
gex gex: “Maybe she is saying that morality exists outside of rules, laws and social conventions? Surely morality isn’t dictated by writing on paper?”
The first idea stretchs things a bit: yes, it’s possible, but Rowling seems so confused about philosophy and causality in general, it seems unlikely.
However it’s absolutely true that writers have to be able to step out of their own, strong personal beliefs to be able to represent characters on paper.
Your parallel with James Bond is also fair, and I must say somewhat uncomfortable, since I like the Bond books somewhat, and two or three of the movies very much. That he’s “licensed to kill” seems a ploy to allow the reader to enjoy Bond’s unrestricted womanizing and mayhem without the reader feeling any personal guilt. I can only say that the character has been with me so long, I can’t see any way to remove him. Sort of like memories of a bad marriage, some of which are bound to be fond.
Tristan: "That sort of behavior is perfectly normal for kids. I hate it as much as any parent, and I’m trying to teach my kids differently, but I know that in the future, my daughter will bribe my son, my son will cheat at school and they will both lie to me.
As for her writing, it’s not that bad. The difference that I see is that she writes in the vulgate, using slang and writing much as people speak."
I think you’re stretching the point a little, but I recognize your underlying observation that the books accurately represent the fact that kids lie, cheat, and steal. However, it’s a matter of degree. My friends and I in High School were no angels ( I think I could shock you, shall we say ), but we never cheated on tests. We never stole things from teachers. I can’t imagine any of my friends ever blackmailing someone – that’s just outrageous. For an adult it’s an offense that can put them in prison, for heaven’s sake!
Even more to the point, even if my friends and I did lie, cheat and steal regularly – that’s no reason at all to glorify it in a children’s book. We want our kids to lie, cheat and steal?
Finally, there’s the issue that Rowling’s kids lie, cheat and steal far more than is typical in children’s books. Pick up something at random from your local library or bookstore. Chances are there will be a couple instances at most in an entire book. Rowling’s characters lie as a way of life. They use lying to survive.
Your next point, about her writing quality is naturally subjective. However, I’ll use three examples to demonstrate. I’m picking them because they aren’t just faults, they’re unusual faults. Hack stuff.
- Open any page, start reading, and pretty shortly you’ll come to the word “very”. Rowling uses it very frequently. And very often to modify a word that doesn’t need it. Very much so.
She’s so addicted to that literary crutch that sometimes she uses it where, on close examination, it doesn’t even make any sense.
- Her writing is filled with cliches. Open any page (you’re in the driver seat). Read down (take your time). Get your (trusty) pen out, and mark any phrase you’ve heard before. (No pressure, just do your personal best.)
Now take a look at those phrases. Do they seem to fit, when examined closely? Do they supply any detail that you pretty much could not have guessed yourself, without her saying so? If that’s the case, you’ve found a place where she’s lazy (or inarticulate).
- She can’t keep a character consistent, sometimes even through the duration of a whole book. I love Mad-Eye Moody from the last book. One of her best characters. Clearly she likes him. And Harry thinks he’s great. A hard, believable character who’s ugly and socially inept, but still captures your attention and affection. This is good writing.
A problem. To make the story come out right, Rowling had to get an agent of the Dark Lord into Hogwarts. Uh-oh. After 100s of pages of sympathetic representation, Rowling suddenly has to turn Mad-Eye into a baddy. How’s that possible? Well, as an author, she could have solved this problem any number of ways. Typical of her, she picked something not merely implausible, but which undermines the respect we had for Mad-Eye: It’s not really him, it’s an exact duplicate who behaves exactly like him – except for two or three devious acts that were never hinted at earlier in the book. Dumbledore says: “You’ve never met the real Mad-Eye Moody, Harry”. Uh-huh. After hundreds of pages establishing his character? Not believable.
What’s worse, however – and it’s unfortunate that Rowling is now so famous editors are probably afraid to cut her stuff or make suggestions – is that there are other “rabbit out of hat” solutions she could have come up with to explain Moody. Ones that are still literary devices, but which would leave the reader valuing the character. Now, since we know he’s been “under the influence”, we readers don’t know what to believe about him.
(For myself, I solved the problem by just assuming it was the real Mad-Eye all along. And that he was just affected by temporary insanity.)
I have quite a few other problems with the consistency of her characters (Snape in particular), and with her other writing habits, but you’ve probably got my drift. . . .
Would you have to stop Hitler? Would you have lied to stop Hitler? You do rather seem to missing the point here - Harry is fighting the most evil force in his universe, not acting as a morality lesson for kids.
You’re just trying entertain me with weird arguments, aren’t ya? I know.
-
Would I have lied to have stopped Hitler? Yes. That’s irrelevant to the case at hand, tho.
-
Is Harry lying to stop a Voldemort? (Can I say his name, here, mods?) Usually not. It’s a good way through each book before Harry and his pals are even aware that something specifically connected with Voldemort is going.
To make this clear: Is Ron trying to get Hermione to give him the answers for assignments on account of Voldemort? Of course not. He’s just cheating.
The moral Rowling is teaching kids is: It’s ok to break the rules if you think you’re special.
I know we’ve drifted off topic here, so it might be better to start a new thread, but at any rate, here’s a link that kind of backs up what you’re saying:
I was just having the same thought!
If gex gex and Tristan would like to start another thread, it’s fine with me.
Just in case anyone cares, I actually stopped at a Christian bookstore today and looked up this guy. He wasn’t hard to find; it’s the newest book out there on HP. Actually there are two! Fantasy and your family and Harry Potter and the Bible. I only looked at the first one, which covers fantasy in general, LOTR, and HP. His theme seems to be ‘enjoy reading (fantasy too), read what you want, but be aware of the elements in some books that you may not want your kids reading.’
It’s thoroughly footnoted and chock-full of quotes. Since a lot of it is from interviews, many of the sources are online, and he always puts in the urls, not all of which work any more, of course. So here are some of the sources he used to come up with his statements (I’ve quoted the same bits he did, so you know what he used):
http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/cookarama/ewinter.html
http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/human/potter.htm
http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/September_1999_Barnes_Noble.htm
http://www.cesnur.org/recens/potter_024.htm
[/quote]
There are also at least two audio shows, which of course have the best quotes. I think one of those is the one the author quotes where a caller asks if she is also a practicing witch and is taken aback when she says not.
http://www.wamu.org/dr/shows/drarc_991018.html#wednesday
So far as I can see, he’s quoting accurately, though it’s not that easy to see where he came to some of his conclusions. But the fact is that at least twice, Wiccans thinking that Rowling is also Wiccan has happened. Which is something of a leap–lots of people do their homework without practicing the subject. But it has happened.
witchcraft is NOT another word for wicca.