Can you give us an example of where Harry says or indicates that the ends justifies the means OR where he makes up his own rules? . Can you point to me in the Goblet of Fire(or any of the books) where Private Parts are mentioned-I cant find it.
Was that a Umbridge Ahem?Ahem… by the centaurs.
.
Well Harry was locked in the closet under the stairs until he went to school. He’s uncle and aunt and cousin are not what would be considered the best loving family. Yet harry has great respect for people. He shows respect to teachers and adults. It is very interesting to see his progression. Rowlings does a good job of having another character around to bring Harry back or point out the faults in his assumptions about people. Just like children have people in their own lives who do the same. Oboviously as he has gotten older he is a little more disrespectly for to some people and feels like he knows everything but i think all teenagers can say and feel that.
No, this guy did: lifesite.net/features/harrypotter/obrienpotter.html
So you know absolutely NOTHING about these books other than what you can google up. And as we already pointed out much of what you post is either flat out wrong(prvate parts, ends justify the means) or taken out of contexy(going int bushes). I think perhaps the problem many have with Rowling is that unlike Tolkien and Lewis she is a woman and for some reason that threatens a lot of people.
I know nothing of these books except what I have read about them. If your point is that I have to read the books before I make a judgement as to whether I will allow my kids to read them, not gonna happen. Not enough time in the day. In fact, I the more I think of it, this discussion is a waste of my time as well. Adios.
Nonsense. That’s what anti-Harry people admit, not what pro-Harry people say. Pro-Harry people say that the books don’t just “retain a certain morality”–they are moral to the core. One can of course argue with specific aspects of Rowling’s view of the universe, but moral decision-making is central and the principles governing such decision-making are those of good old-fashioned natural law.
I find that one truly disturbing detail in the books, FWIW.
All I can say is: either O’Brien is not reading intelligently, or his understanding needs a little shifting. Based on my reading of Father Elijah (which I enjoyed greatly, BTW, and have read at least twice) the latter is probably true. Granted, FE is an apocalyptic novel, which means that it necessarily deals with sharper borderlines than exist in real life. And Elijah’s temptations with regard to Anna are very well done–never explicitly sexual but powerful anyway. But the bad characters are mere caricatures, and while the good characters are a lot more convincing (a rare gift and one of the reasons I like the novel), even there O’Brien’s distaste for any hint of gray sometimes gets in the way.
As G. K. Chesterton said, you may be in doubt as to where the line should be drawn between North and South America, but that doesn’t mean that you don’t believe there is a clear difference between the two continents. That’s how it works in real life–we all face choices every day that blur the lines between good and evil. When is a decision to soften the truth in order to spare someone’s feelings simply prudent and charitable, and when is it dishonest? On a more public scale, what kinds of actions are legitimate in order to protect the country from ruthless terrorists?
O’Brien is inserting here the idea that magic as used in HP is intrinsically evil. That has to be argued for separately from the “moral ambivalence” issue. Obviously if you think that magic in a work of subcreation is fundamentally evil then the books are bad. But the hypothesis of the books is that in the HP world magic itself is not evil. The Dark Arts are clearly separate from ordinary magic. It’s simply false to say that all the good characters do the same stuff Voldemort does, just in a less extreme way.
This is complete nonsense. O’Brien’s view of magic as completely illegitimate even in a “subcreation” (a view I disagree with, but could respect if he applied it consistently) is coloring his interpretation here (and again we see the usual double standard WRT more explicitly Christian works of fantasy such as Narnia and LotR). The HP books do not endorse an “ends justify the means philosophy.” Quite to the contrary–Harry is tormented by the fear that he shares something with Voldemort and may become like him. Harry’s greatest nightmare is that he will become the sort of character O’Brien thinks he already is!
No. He isn’t intended to be a model character. He has many admirable qualities, but also great potential for evil. We haven’t seen the last of him yet, remember. If the seventh book ends on the same tone as the sixth then I’ll concede O’Brien many of his points. But just from a narrative point of view alone this is inconceivable. Book 6 ends with Harry full of rage and vengeance–this is dramatically appropriate at that point in the story.
We should put O’Brien up against the Christian reviewer who criticized “Shrek” for *not *linking moral to physical beauty! O’Brien should also go after Tolkien who consistently did exactly the same thing he criticizes Rowling for doing. Last I checked, no Orc has ever won a beauty pageant. (OK, Tolkien portrays evil characters as sometimes seeming beautiful, but usually this doesn’t last.)
And Paulkorb, your opinion on the books is not valid, because YOU HAVE NOT READ THEM! YOU HAVE PROVEN THIS, SO SHUT UP! ONLY PEOPLE WHO HAVE READ THE BOOKS SHOULD POST HERE! :tsktsk: :banghead: :banghead:
What I find ironic about all this is far from banning my chilkdren from readings the books it was my Daughter who encouraged me to read them in the first place.! Of course banning would have done little good-I banned them from watching MTV but they always seemed to know all about the latest music videos…
I don’t think this is true at all. The most evil character in the book, Voldemort, is described as being incredibly handsome in his youth. His current inhuman appearance is a result of his choice to mutilate his own soul through evil. But still, I don’t believe he’s described as ugly, just inhuman. Ironically, as Contarini pointed out, this is consistent with how Tolkien portrayed the corrupting effects of evil. (Orcs were once Elves.) And yet critics continue to insist that Rowling is so very different from Tolkien.
These objections are so petty they barely deserve a response. Striving for objective truth? You expect a teenager to strive for objective truth? That’s utter nonsense. Do you honestly think that before Harry makes a decision he thinks about it and says, “Well, the ends justify the means, so I can do whatever I want”? That’s just silly. Teenagers don’t think like that! Teenagers barely even stop to think about whether what they’re doing is right or wrong, but Harry does. Harry wants to make the right choices. Yes, he messes up sometimes. Yes, sometimes he breaks the rules when he thinks something important is at stake. So what? He tries! Which is more than most people, including Catholics and Protestants, can say these days. Most importantly, he loves! He is motivated by love. Love of friends and family and love of humanity in general. Harry routinely risks his life to save others, even people he doesn’t know very well. So what if he has to go out after curfew to do it? He’s always trying to do the right thing and he is always trying to fight evil. Is that so wrong?
Is it wrong that I find Lucious Malfoy kinda hot and charming in a disturbingly evil smarmy way? Or maybe it’s just Jason Isaacs…I don’t think this is true at all. The most evil character in the book, Voldemort, is described as being incredibly handsome in his youth. His current inhuman appearance is a result of his choice to mutilate his own soul through evil. But still, I don’t believe he’s described as ugly, just inhuman. Ironically, as Contarini pointed out, this is consistent with how Tolkien portrayed the corrupting effects of evil. (Orcs were once Elves.) And yet critics continue to insist that Rowling is so very different from Tolkien.
Indeed. Because the Death Eaters are primarily made of pure blood wizards who are the aristocracy, the “beautiful people” of the wizarding world, it is more reasonable to think that the bad guys are actually better looking than the good guys. I mean, look at Moody! The man is horribly mutilated, yet he is one of the chief members of the Order and a personal friend of Dumbledore. And there’s Snape who will almost certainly turn out to have been loyal to Dumbledore. He puts me in mind of the famous LOTR quote about Aragorn. He “looks foul but feels fair.” Granted, Snape doesn’t exactly feel fair right now, but I’m willing to bet he will in the end.
I also beleive Snape will turn out to be a good guy on the end. it will be interesting to see how Rowling pulls it off.Indeed. Because the Death Eaters are primarily made of pure blood wizards who are the aristocracy, the “beautiful people” of the wizarding world, it is more reasonable to think that the bad guys are actually better looking than the good guys. I mean, look at Moody! The man is horribly mutilated, yet he is one of the chief members of the Order and a personal friend of Dumbledore. And there’s Snape who will almost certainly turn out to have been loyal to Dumbledore. He puts me in mind of the famous LOTR quote about Aragorn. He “looks foul but feels fair.” Granted, Snape doesn’t exactly feel fair right now, but I’m willing to bet he will in the end.
I think so too. I believe that he is somehow working for the good guys. I hope so, anyway.
Well, a good read through of the section in the Catechism about the Morality of Human Acts will show you that he wasn’t really responsible for Dumbledore’s death. (I know because I read it hoping for just such a result.)
You listen to your daughter???
I think Dumbledore told Snape to kill him. If true, that actually does raise interesting means-and-ends questions that might give ammo to Mr. O’Brien and other critics of HP!
No offense, but no. Unless you mean that Dumbledore did the same sort of thing with Snape that he did with Harry before going to the cave. Absolutely I think it likely that Dumbledore would have told Snape that if ever there was a choice between which of them would survive, that Snape was more important. However, Dumbledore actually instructing Snape specifically to kill him is ridiculous and impossible.
As little as possible-in fact she hasnt called me in weeks!
