proof about negative views on Harry Potter

[nickybr38]

Harry always has immense respect for Dumbledore. In fact, it is that respect which saves his life in Chamber of Secrets. The only time I can recall his disobeying or dismissing Dumbledore’s instructions is when he doesn’t work to get the real memory from Slughorn in Half-Blood Prince, and when Dumbledore rebukes him for it, Harry feels really bad and realizes he was wrong. He also respects Professor McGonagall a lot, and indeed most of the Hogwarts teachers.

Are Mr. and Mrs. Weasley “fuddy duddies” or dumb? What about Neville’s grandmother? Or the Hogwarts faculty?

The only time I can think of when the students choose to act as though the adults can’t help them is the climax of Order of the Phoenix, and we quickly find out they were wrong to make that assumption: the children cause the mess, and the proper authority figures (Dumbledore, the Order of the Phoenix) have to come in and save the day.

Fair enough. Honestly, I think Harry Potter rightfully inculcates in children a realization that there are principles higher than earthly authorities, and that those principles should govern our lives. When earthly authorities act in conformance with these principles, they are to be obeyed; if they command contravention of these principles, they should not be.

And good authority figures in the series - like Dumbledore - do inspire devotion and submission from the kids. Even with Snape, the children’s lack of trust in him in Order of the Phoenix ultimately gets Sirius killed.

As for the bad authority figures… well, they’re bad. They ought to be disobeyed, just as the Nazis ought to have been disobeyed. Can anyone seriously maintain that the children had some kind of moral obligation to obey Dolores Umbridge? The magic of Dumbledore’s office indicates that her status as headmistress of Hogwarts was not even legally valid.

This is true in Harry Potter, too. For instance, Harry and his friends start “Dumbledore’s Army,” and the net result of it is that Dumbledore is forced to flee into exile. They feel really stupid and bad about that, and it wouldn’t have happened if they had listened to Dumbledore and McGonagall by not antagonizing or resisting the Umbridge regime.

Sometimes it’s the children’s loyalty to proper authority that saves the day. For instance:

• in Philosopher’s Stone they attempt to alert Dumbledore (even sending him an owl) before getting involved, and Dumbledore does indeed save the day by returning and defeating Quirrell; in fact, he figures out on his own that he needs to come back without the assistance of the children’s owl.
• in Chamber of Secrets Harry’s loyalty to Dumbledore allows Fawkes to come to his assistance, which saves his life
• in the climax of Half-Blood Prince Harry listens to and obeys everything Dumbledore asks of him

Honestly I hadn’t put much thought into the books. I just read them at face value. And as I’ve said I found very little ‘negative’ in the books (except that the next to last book was painfully boring - or was it the last? Which one is the one where they’re tenting and running and tenting and running? That one was boring mostly). I’m not entirely certain why people have so much negative to say about the Potter series and was simply attempting to find the only objectionable thing I COULD think of in the series and that’s it.

That’s the only thing I could think of but I’m not willing to defend this position because honestly I don’t have a problem with the books.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Honestly I hadn’t put much thought into the books. I just read them at face value. And as I’ve said I found very little ‘negative’ in the books (except that the next to last book was painfully boring - or was it the last? Which one is the one where they’re tenting and running and tenting and running? That one was boring mostly). I’m not entirely certain why people have so much negative to say about the Potter series and was simply attempting to find the only objectionable thing I COULD think of in the series and that’s it.

That’s the only thing I could think of but I’m not willing to defend this position because honestly I don’t have a problem with the books.

I enjoyed the books very much and I recognize that this is a common theme in children’s books which is why I don’t mind the Harry Potter books. Just finding the only negative I could think of for the sake of the topic.

Indeed!

While I don’t think that the authority issues are problematic for the reasons I explained above, and while I love the series, even I admit there is a moment that could be legitimately regarded as problematic for children: SPOILER ALERT]: the morally ambiguous treatment of Dumbledore’s plan to have Snape euthanize him.

Of course, I think this moment’s potential to have a bad effect on impressionable readers is mitigated by the fact that Dumbledore is presented as kind of a selfish scoundrel in Deathly Hallows.

 

[nicolep]

Yes, I recognize this. And as I’ve said multiple times I was merely pointing out the only ‘negative’ things I saw in Harry Potter as that is the topic of choice.

I enjoyed the books very much and I recognize that this is a common theme in children’s books which is why I don’t mind the Harry Potter books. Just finding the only negative I could think of for the sake of the topic.

Fair enough. I honestly didn’t read the entire thread and saw that post. I should have glanced through and read everything first.

 

[nickybr38]

Indeed!

While I don’t think that the authority issues are problematic for the reasons I explained above, and while I love the series, even I admit there is a moment that could be legitimately regarded as problematic for children: SPOILER ALERT]: the morally ambiguous treatment of Dumbledore’s plan to have Snape euthanize him.

Of course, I think this moment’s potential to have a bad effect on impressionable readers is mitigated by the fact that Dumbledore is presented as kind of a selfish scoundrel in Deathly Hallows.

Hm… that’s a good point. See, now, I think true fans of Harry Potter should be tasked with finding the negative because I really think those who have put more thought into the series could find more legitimate problems with some of the themes in the books. Us casual fans just kind of glance through and never really consider the deeper issues.



There! Now we’re getting some ‘negative’ proofs for the books. Haha.

 

[nickybr38]

Fair enough. I honestly didn’t read the entire thread and saw that post. I should have glanced through and read everything first.

No harm, no foul. I wouldn’t want to be seen as against the books because I’m just not. They have pride of place on my bookshelf because I enjoyed them.

Now, I’m not sure if you posted before… did you find anything in the books that you thought could support someone’s decision NOT to read them? Just out of curiosity.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

No harm, no foul. I wouldn’t want to be seen as against the books because I’m just not. They have pride of place on my bookshelf because I enjoyed them.

Now, I’m not sure if you posted before… did you find anything in the books that you thought could support someone’s decision NOT to read them? Just out of curiosity.

I know this wasn’t directed at me, but I just want to say that even though I love them a lot, I do know of children who have been frightened by certain parts in them: one friend of mine, when she was little, stopped reading when she was frightened by Quirrel’s drinking unicorn blood in the forest. My own brother was freaked out by the Voldemort baby at the end of Goblet of Fire.

So I can definitely see why some children shouldn’t read them, although I admit my reasons aren’t moral. They have to be old enough not to get scared by these few instances of disturbing imagery.

 

[nicolep]

No harm, no foul. I wouldn’t want to be seen as against the books because I’m just not. They have pride of place on my bookshelf because I enjoyed them.

Now, I’m not sure if you posted before… did you find anything in the books that you thought could support someone’s decision NOT to read them? Just out of curiosity.

Cyber hug!

No, I don’t find anything inherently negative in the books. I will admit that in comparison to the overall opinion of this forum (according to my opinion only), I seem to be fairly lax in my morals regarding popular media.

Sure, there are things that can be taken out of context as being “negative”, but in the end, it all works out and tells the right way to do things. I had never honestly considered the SPOILER ALERT] negative part of Dumbledore having Snape kill him to keep Malfoy from having to do it. I know that’s wrong, but it doesn’t mean the books shouldn’t be read by children (or adults for that matter), IMHO.

 

[nickybr38]

Cyber hug!

No, I don’t find anything inherently negative in the books. I will admit that in comparison to the overall opinion of this forum (according to my opinion only), I seem to be fairly lax in my morals regarding popular media.

Sure, there are things that can be taken out of context as being “negative”, but in the end, it all works out and tells the right way to do things. I had never honestly considered the SPOILER ALERT] negative part of Dumbledore having Snape kill him to keep Malfoy from having to do it. I know that’s wrong, but it doesn’t mean the books shouldn’t be read by children (or adults for that matter), IMHO.

It’s actually really hard to think of negative things in the books isn’t it? Haha. I mean, I tried and apparently failed miserably but at least I tried to think of something negative beyond just the magic.

Fone Bone made some good points though about certain scenes that might be frightening to children. I guess it just depends on the child (although you’ll never know it scares them until AFTER they’ve read it so that puts a person in a tricky place of discerning what’s better - risking the fright or leaving the book until they’re older).

 

[Luvz2travel]

 

[styrgwillidar]

Well, a fan of the books overall and I’ve posted this in other HP threads.

I found the most morally objectionable part to be HP’s choice of confronting Voldemort face to face, passing up the opportunity to take him from concealment.

That is, at a point when he is the leader, responsibile for others engaged in combat with the fate of the world in the near term at risk, he takes a far higher gamble than is necessary. He is concealed under the cloak undetected, but instead of casting a spell on an unwary opponent, he choose to confront him face to face gambling that his skill and assessment of the situation are correct.

 

[nickybr38]

Well, a fan of the books overall and I’ve posted this in other HP threads.

I found the most morally objectionable part to be HP’s choice of confronting Voldemort face to face, passing up the opportunity to take him from concealment.

That is, at a point when he is the leader, responsibile for others engaged in combat with the fate of the world in the near term at risk, he takes a far higher gamble than is necessary. He is concealed under the cloak undetected, but instead of casting a spell on an unwary opponent, he choose to confront him face to face gambling that his skill and assessment of the situation are correct.

Isn’t it considered dishonorable to ‘shoot someone in the back’, so to speak?

I’m not sure about the morality of Harry’s decision but I’m not sure I’m comfortable with the idea of killing someone without offering them a fair fight - even if that someone is Voldemort…

 

[LemonAndLime]

Well, a fan of the books overall and I’ve posted this in other HP threads.

I found the most morally objectionable part to be HP’s choice of confronting Voldemort face to face, passing up the opportunity to take him from concealment.

That is, at a point when he is the leader, responsibile for others engaged in combat with the fate of the world in the near term at risk, he takes a far higher gamble than is necessary. He is concealed under the cloak undetected, but instead of casting a spell on an unwary opponent, he choose to confront him face to face gambling that his skill and assessment of the situation are correct.

But Harry couldn’t just sneak up on Voldy and kill him and expect himself to survive and everyone else. Voldy had Hogwarts hostage, and harry knew he had to die so that voldy could die, as voldy was invincible until harry was ‘killed’.

Pay more attention!

 

[colliric]

Just to offer an outsiders opinion (outside from the two of you I mean), I don’t believe LemonAndLime was being defensive at all.

I can agree with you nickybr that by not obeying all of the school rules, he disobeyed Dumbledore. However, as LemonAndLime said, he always did what Dumbledore explicitly told him to do. It’s even a huge part of the final book that Harry “blindly” followed Dumbledore without knowing the man hardly at all.

As LemonAndLime said, in children’s literature, it’s almost a running theme that the children don’t listen to the adults. It’s not unique to HP at all and doesn’t take away from the morals behind it at all. I highly doubt that most children would disobey their parents because book “XYZ” said it was okay.

The last book brings an element of faith into the story, leading some to call it a last minute attempt to present HP with some Christian allegorys in it, or as others say to put the series into it’s proper light. The scene where he sees Dumbledore’s eye in the mirror shard was really in the final book the only time he finally realises Dumbledore isn’t dead and that there may be life after death. It’s really Harry’s first experience with real faith. Although he could do such magical things, he never believed in the afterlife until the nagging feeling that Dumbledore was still somehow alive(but physically dead) finally broke through to Harry’s heart.

When Harry sees the Griffindor sword at the bottom of the lake and a strange doe patronus, it is first delibratly described in the text as a Cross(or crucifix) that he sees at the bottom of the lake only revealing itself to be a sword upon closer inspection.

And of cause there is a scripture quote(Saint Matthew 6:21) at the grave of Harry’s parents, and a Christian(potentially Catholic) church in their hometown(the cemetery of which they are buried in), suggesting they were Christians and actually regularily attended this parish(mixing and socalising with “muggles”, although of cause not revealing they were wizzards). One can also be left to wonder if it is in fact a Christian Church that services the Wizzard community, showing that even in the wider wizzard world there may have been Christian Churches.

In this book, Dumbledore also appears to understand some basic christian teachings(perhaps having read or even possesed the Bible), and it’s suggested, from what I recall, that he actually choose the scripture verse to be inscribed on their memorial.

They didn’t do this so well in the film version, but in the novel Harry doesn’t recognise the quote(having never read the bible), and has to ask Hermione where it comes from(even she does not know the exact book it came from, but she knows enough to tell harry what it means). Sadly that dialog doesn’t appear in the scene in the film.

 

[nicolep]

The last book brings an element of faith into the story, leading some to call it a last minute attempt to present HP with some Christian allegorys in it, or as others say to put the series into it’s proper light. The scene where he sees Dumbledore’s eye in the mirror shard was really in the final book the only time he finally realises Dumbledore isn’t dead and that there may be life after death. It’s really Harry’s first experience with real faith. Although he could do such magical things, he never believed in the afterlife until the nagging feeling that Dumbledore was still somehow alive(but physically dead) finally broke through to Harry’s heart.

When Harry sees the Griffindor sword at the bottom of the lake and a strange doe patronus, it is first delibratly described in the text as a Cross(or crucifix) that he sees at the bottom of the lake only revealing itself to be a sword upon closer inspection.

And of cause there is a scripture quote(Saint Matthew 6:21) at the grave of Harry’s parents, and a Christian(potentially Catholic) church in their hometown(the cemetery of which they are buried in), suggesting they were Christians and actually regularily attended this parish(mixing and socalising with “muggles”, although of cause not revealing they were wizzards). One can also be left to wonder if it is in fact a Christian Church that services the Wizzard community, showing that even in the wider wizzard world there may have been Christian Churches.

In this book, Dumbledore also appears to understand some basic christian teachings(perhaps having read or even possesed the Bible), and it’s suggested, from what I recall, that he actually choose the scripture verse to be inscribed on their memorial.

They didn’t do this so well in the film version, but in the novel Harry doesn’t recognise the quote(having never read the bible), and has to ask Hermione where it comes from(even she does not know the exact book it came from, but she knows enough to tell harry what it means). Sadly that dialog doesn’t appear in the scene in the film.

I know all of those things. Did you mean to respond to my post? I was addressing someone’s specific concerns about Harry disobeying authority figures.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Well, a fan of the books overall and I’ve posted this in other HP threads.

I found the most morally objectionable part to be HP’s choice of confronting Voldemort face to face, passing up the opportunity to take him from concealment.

That is, at a point when he is the leader, responsibile for others engaged in combat with the fate of the world in the near term at risk, he takes a far higher gamble than is necessary. He is concealed under the cloak undetected, but instead of casting a spell on an unwary opponent, he choose to confront him face to face gambling that his skill and assessment of the situation are correct.

Is Harry aware at that moment of how his sacrifice has supernaturally protected his allies and loved ones from bodily harm?

If not (and I honestly forget), I see your point. If so, then he’s really not risking anything.

 

[styrgwillidar]

I’d have to re-read it, but if I remember correctly he is hoping he’s correct in his assessment of ownership of the Wand of Destiny and his ability to take down Voldemort. Although he does state that Voldemorts spells arent’ as effective anymore due to his sacrifice.

But whether his sacrifice is effective (and actually a stronger argument for him staying alive/minimizing risk to himself if it is) in protecting others; he doesn’t know if he can take Voldemort. He’s under a cloak of concealment in a chaotic crowd undetected by Voldemort. Obviously a higher probability of success in taking an opponent unaware than face-to-face – and the fate of the world and his followers are at stake.

From the catechism:
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

And some of the comments about a fair fight, being uncomfortable about shooting someone in the back illustrate my point on the skewed morality. HP is risking everything, not just for himself, but for everyone else. Ok, HP can decide on gambling with his own life but is it moral for him to take more risk than absolutely necessary with the lives of others?

Fairness has nothing to do with it, if combat/self-defense is justified it is because of the actions of your aggressor, your goal is to survive, and have those you are responsible for survive. It’s not a sporting match — there are not winners and losers, there are the dead and the living.

 

[styrgwillidar]

But Harry couldn’t just sneak up on Voldy and kill him and expect himself to survive and everyone else. Voldy had Hogwarts hostage, and harry knew he had to die so that voldy could die, as voldy was invincible until harry was ‘killed’.

Pay more attention!

I am referring to the point after HP offers himself up in the forest, after Voldemort and him are knocked out and recover. When he is at Hogwarts in front of the crowd and slips the cloak on as Neville confronts Voldemort.

ETA: Voldemort retained an attachment to this life after harry was ‘killed’ until Neville killed the snake, the last remaining Horcrux.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I’d have to re-read it, but if I remember correctly he is hoping he’s correct in his assessment of ownership of the Wand of Destiny and his ability to take down Voldemort. Although he does state that Voldemorts spells arent’ as effective anymore due to his sacrifice.

But whether his sacrifice is effective (and actually a stronger argument for him staying alive/minimizing risk to himself if it is) in protecting others; he doesn’t know if he can take Voldemort. He’s under a cloak of concealment in a chaotic crowd undetected by Voldemort. Obviously a higher probability of success in taking an opponent unaware than face-to-face – and the fate of the world and his followers are at stake.

From what I remember, I got the impression that he realizes his sacrifice’s efficacy only as he observes the effects of the battle. If my impression is correct, then hey, you have a point.

On the other hand, don’t he and Dumbledore figure out in King’s Cross that Harry has now extended the same supernatural protection to his allies and loved ones that his mother did to him?

If so (and hey, I could be remembering either one of these incorrectly), then I disagree, as there was no rush: he already knew Voldemort and the Death Eaters weren’t going to be able to do any more damage anyway.

 

[colliric]

I know all of those things. Did you mean to respond to my post? I was addressing someone’s specific concerns about Harry disobeying authority figures.

My point is Harry does not nessecerily blindly follow Dumbledore, he actually begins to believe in life after death. Therefore he takes a leap of faith. I guess it also explains why he believes he could beat Voldermort on his own. He believes he will never truly die, while Voldermort believes there’s nothing beyond death.

 

[nicolep]

My point is Harry does not necessarily blindly follow Dumbledore, he actually begins to believe in life after death. Therefore he takes a leap of faith. I guess it also explains why he believes he could beat Voldermort on his own. He believes he will never truly die, while Voldermort believes there’s nothing beyond death.

I disagree. He does blindly follow Dumbledore throughout the series. Toward the end, he comes into his own and start to do things the way he feels right. He still blindly followed him for the majority of the series. I still fail to see what it has to do with him disobeying authority figures, but all righty.