L
Little_Katie
Guest
That’s obviously inappropriate. But I seriously doubt Rowling would write anything like that.Morality does not depend on the means. Why should I tolerate torture from the protagoinist in children’s liturature, no matter what the means?
Does the fantastical nature of the means render what is being presented as moral, or even morally neutral?
What if Rawlings came out with an additional book.
Let’s say that in that book, a Ravenclaw girl confides in Hermione that she is pregnant (too much butter beer made Doyle look less repulsive than normaland Doyles “protecticus latexicus” charm failed.
So the Ravenclaw girl requests that Hermione teach her the abortion charm.
Would the fantastical nature of that make it appropriate children’s reading? After all ‘abortion spells’ are just as pure fantasy as a Crucius Curse
As I am plainly in need of help understanding the difference, could you please explain it to me![]()
And I think what you meant was that “the ends doesn’t justify the means”. I think your point was that the means DO matter. Yes? Just words confused a little right?
Sometimes Harry Potter broke the rules w/ good intentions. I think this a normal thing in human nature. It doesn’t mean it’s right, but it’s something we do.
JK Rowling created a realistic character in this sense. And I have read the books and can tell you that YES he was usually punished when he broke the rules, but still received acknowledgment for the good that he did. It usually balanced out in most cases during the series… Just my opinion though.
I seem to remember in the Narnia series which everyone loves so much (as do I, mind you) that the characters were not perfect and made mistakes. It was why Aslan had to perform the ‘deep magic’ remember???
My point is that no child’s story is going to have perfect characters.