Harry Potter

[Samwise]

milena, hullo there! <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Watching LOTR<BR>The edge of my seat<BR>hands tearing up a napkin<BR>I liked that movie!<P>Copyright 2001 S. Uffelman <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Jessica Jade]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> people decided to make this popular. I heard a radio interview with marketers who admitted that they didn't care if the book was all that great or not, but kids would like it and read it, just because THEY were going to MAKE it popular. I hate having things like that decided for me, and be one of the mindless masses... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I had no idea about that...the wanting to make it popular stuff...but mind you, i am certainly NOT one of the mindless masses...i like HP books because they are a ligh, fun, extremely creative, fast-paced read and thoroughly enjoyable. (As many of you have already stated.) The books are NOT overrated...and the reason i think Rowling is a genius in her own way is because of her prolific creativity...it's all the little things she comes up with, like how she names things, how the wizard world parallels our world, the whole existence of the wizarding world and more...and so what if they are children's books, that doesn't mean that everyone can't enjoy them! <P>Actually...i don't know what i'd think of HP if i read them aagain..they are good books, but ever since i read LOTR (i'm on Return of the King now), i don't knpw how much i'd still enjoy HP. At first, when i first started LOTR, i thought "These books aer soo different how can anyone compare them?" and now i know there are similarities...for example<BR>-the Ringwraiths are like the dementors...you feel cold and miserable and piercingly frightened when they are near..you can feel their dreadful presence<BR>-Yes, gandalf and dumbledore seem to have similar roles in their stories<BR>-the battle of good vs. evil<P>and more, i think, although i can't remember...i guess overall though, i could say that the two series are completely different but just coincidentally have some things in common...if you look at the big picture...they really are two totally different stories...it's not unfair to compare them, but they are not really that much alike. Although i like HP, it just doens't have the depth and maturity that LOTR has, and it's not so incredibly moving, touching, tragic...besides the fact that RIngs in an epic mythology type story and HP is not...LOTR is definitly the best! <P>Lord of the Rings is probably one of the best books i've EVER read...you can never read them enough times.

[Neferchoirwen]

Hmmm...I knew this would come out sooner or later...<BR>From what I read and unserstood from somewhere, JK Rowling intended HP to be for adults---she never reads them to her daughter, and does not recommend them to be read to 7 year olds.<BR>In relation to Airetalathwen's mention of advanced placement literature, or that thing about Rowling's style, I think that's why HP is very popular (did i make sense there? lost my point in the way i wanted it to come out) JKR's style is very very descriptive---one of the main reasons why people atually 'saw' the places in film as they have 'read' them.

[Neferchoirwen]

Hmmm...I knew this would come out sooner or later...<BR>From what I read and unserstood from somewhere, JK Rowling intended HP to be for adults---she never reads them to her daughter, and does not recommend them to be read to 7 year olds.<BR>In relation to Airetalathwen's mention of advanced placement literature, or that thing about Rowling's style, I think that's why HP is very popular (did i make sense there? lost my point in the way i wanted it to come out) JKR's style is very very descriptive---one of the main reasons why people atually 'saw' the places in film as they have 'read' them.<P>However, I don't agree with Rosa Underhill...(Sorry, girl ) I practically grew up with Alice and Wonderland. I enjoyed Hallmark's version of it.<BR>I was in my Children's Literature class a few days ago and I learned that AIW is a philosophical discourse on growing and finding one's identity. Like when the caterpillkar asks Alice "Who are you?" and Alice answers "I hardly know myself, you see," and the caterpillr eventually answers" "I don't see." It's got something to do with a philosopher's premises on identity---I just forgot his name.<P>And, just to point out something...<BR>children's literature in the time of AIW, or anything by Beatrix Potter, had a vague theme to concetrate on---most of the writers then just wrote for pleasure (Lewis Carroll wrote for his own pleasure and never mentioined to 'educate' the real Alice, and Beatrix Potter was never really fond of children...just to say that we can;t really say what is children's lit and what is not.<P>phew. that was long...<BR>sorry for the loooooong issues. I don;t wanna leave my brain stagnant from all I know.<BR>God bless!

[Rosa Underhill]

You are more than welcome to disagree with me, Neferchoirwen! As I learned in philosophy: you'll never learn anything if you just talk to people who think like you do. I'm one of few who truely disliked AIW. I gave it a try because I saw it on TLC's "Great Books Festival",(same with "Frankenstien"; didn't like that either). Of course, TLC can't always be trusted: they still think Plato's "Republic" is a work about politics. Pheh.

[Rosa Underhill]

You are more than welcome to disagree with me, Neferchoirwen! As I learned in philosophy: you'll never learn anything if you just talk to people who think like you do. I'm one of few who truely disliked AIW. I gave it a try because I saw it on TLC's "Great Books Festival",(same with "Frankenstien"; didn't like that either). Of course, TLC can't always be trusted: they still think Plato's "Republic" is a work about politics. Pheh.<P>And Ms. Rowling's daughter is actually HP obsessed. J.K. does let her read them, but I think she reads them to her so her daughter won't be too frightened. J.K. has never said she was writing for adults. I belive her words were something like "I didn't know I was writing for children..."

[dragongirlG]

I'm quite young, so if you want a child's point of view, here you go.<P>Harry Potter was not overrated. Perhaps Rowling did use some of Tolkien's ideas, but I wouldn't say it was plaigarism. The great thing about HP, and why people like it so much, is because <B>a)</B>they are going through the ages the characters are going through or <B>b)</B>they have been through the age that the characters are going through. That's the great thing about HP. You can relate to the characters, and it's also parallel to the real world, so you can relate to the wizarding world. I see the simliarities identified between Rowling's and Tolkien's writings but other than that I don't like to compare them. The good thing about HP is that not only does it enthrall children, but also adults. J.K. Rowling didn't even know she was writing for adults. The HP books are fun, fast-paced, and highly enjoyable. I would definitely recommend reading them and I hope people don't get put off by all the hype surrounding it, nor judge it by the movie adaptation. The ingenuity in Harry Potter is in the absorbing prose, fast-paced reading, and the ability to write realistically in a fantasy setting. It's incredible. <P>On the other hand, I agree that LOTR is more mature than Harry Potter. I will not say that it is flat-out <I>better</I>, for that is unfair. I don't believe that people can exactly compare LOTR and HP. Anyway people may say that HP is a children's book just because a lot of kids like it and have read it and there was such a big controversy about it. The good--and bad--thing about LOTR is that, well, how can I say this?...is that many people give up reading it. I know since this is a forum for LOTR fans, the people here might not see why, but when I first picked up LOTR, I didn't like it as much as I did with HP. I thought the descriptions were too long, the plot was too slow, the book was too big, etc. It took me while to get interested in reading it. I must admit, though, that LOTR is a more profound than Harry Potter at some points.<P>This is unfinished...but I can't think right now. And sorry for the controversial viewpoints, but that's my opinion.

[Emni Windrunner]

If you're still looking for a stand-alone fantasy book, I'd recommend <B>The Seventh Princess</B> by Nick Sullivan, if you can find it.<BR>Like many of you, I also don't like to draw comparisons between Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, but there are some similarities that I can't help but notice, mainly in the area of archetypes. There is the archetypical (and all-but-forgotten nowadays) battle between good and evil, and several of the characters from both series are archetypes that, while they're not precisely interchangeable, are very similar. There's the wise old teacher (Galdalf, Dumbledore), the unlikely hero (Frodo, Harry), the ultimate bad guy (Sauron, Voldemort), and the lesser bad guy who's still dangerous (Saruman, various figures in the HP world).<BR>I think, as has been said already, that LOTR is heavier and more profound, as well as more deeply developed, but I don't think HP should be written off as thoughtless fluff that's only good for a laugh and some adventure. This is true of all the HP books, not just <B>The Goblet of Fire</B>, and, light "children's fare" though it might be, Harry Potter has proven as thought-provoking as Tolkien and C.S. Lewis have done for me.<BR>And as for Harry Potter being satanic and desensitizing...Well, I work in the periodicals section at a library, and I can't count the number of articles and columns I've seen and read that scream about how HP is producing a new generation of devil-worshipers, but I've noticed that most of the writers' problems with HP are things that occur in LOTR, as well, and they accept those. Gandalf uses magic, and that's okay, but the minute Harry raises his wand, it's evil? Most of these column-writers need to take a course in introductory logic, because their arguments have more holes in them than Swiss cheese. I think the fourth HP book comes the closest to any kind of spiritually dangerous ground, but what's shown in there is clearly portrayed as evil, and what balanced kid in his right mind is going to want to do any of that?!<BR>Okay, sorry about the vent, I'm done now. HP is one of my hot buttons.

[Jessica Jade]

Well said, Emmi! I agree with the you about the HP bashers. I HATE how ANYONE can have the nerve to blame the media for violence in our society. It's absolutely rediculous to blame the media...it's obvious that people who do so are just avoiding taking responsibility for their own actions. I mean, people KNOW the difference between fact and fiction, people KNOW the difference between fantasy and reality...as if a movie/book character or song lyric can REALLY make an impact on how we live our lives? PUHleease. COuld you be ANY more absurd? It's outrageous. I don't understand why any morons could be so damn stupid as to be afraid of Harry Potter books, thinking that they will actually influence children and turn out witches what not.<P>Yea..so that's just my moment of venting anger for the day Sorry if it's a little off topic.

[Rosa Underhill]

Actually, media does play a huge role in our lives, if we let it. Most people do. (Watch a weekday night sitcom and then go to a toystore and see how the parents treat their kids.) But when it comes to violence, the only thing the media is guilty of is desensitizing us to it. Aside from that, it's still the person who commited the violent act who is truely to blame. He/she had a choice to do no harm or to do hurt; he/she chose to do harm and the tv did not make him/her do it.

[Kalimac]

Love HP - I don't really like comparing it to Tolkien, because they're written in such completely different veins; it's apples and oranges (to coin a phrase). They're both great in their own ways.<P>And I agree thrice over that blaming violence on the media says a lot more about the people who do the blaming than it does about the media (though I'm not defending the media in this completely either, to be honest I don't even own a television because there's so little worth watching, and there are a lot of things shown for shock value, not because they're necessary to a story). What's amazing about that whole issue is how people treat this as some sort of new phenomenon. "He saw a character get stabbed to death on TV, so OF COURSE he had to go out and try it." Well, if media violence is bad, how about 500 years ago when if you showed up early enough at Tyburn Road on execution day you could see three or four guys get strangled and disembowelled live, under government aegis no less. That had to do a lot more to your psyche than fictional violence ever could, but somehow there was never a rash of medieval defendants saying "Well, I thought if the King could do it, I could too!" Wonder why that was...<p>[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: Kalimac ]

I don't see why people can't enjoy Harry and Middle Earth at the same time, prehaps this is just my narrowmindedness...?

[dragongirlG]

Just found this news article...to all the HP bashers, ha!!!!<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Hooked on Harry<BR>Students explain why they’d rather read than watch TV<BR>By ALSON COLE, news writer <BR>“Harry Potter is the best thing to ever happen to children’s literature,” claims Northside Elementary fourth grade teacher Erin McGee.<BR>And that’s saying a lot in a day and age when TV, video games and movies often replace recreational reading.<P>But, McGee contends that British author J.K. Rowling’s four books chronicling the adventures of Harry Potter (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire) have done much to ignite a love of reading among her students.<P> She’s not alone. <P>Each of the Harry Potter books has dominated The New York Times’ best-sellers list. The fifth sequel, set for release in June, is expected to continue the Harry Potter multiple-million-selling frenzy.<P>And even after Rowling hesitantly sold the rights to her book to Warner Bros. in a shrewd deal in which she maintained a lot of say-so concerning the screenplay, and even after that first Harry Potter movie went down in the history books as the biggest grossing film of 2001, it’s the books that kids just can’t seem to get enough of.<P>So what makes Harry so hot? Ask the experts.<P>Northside fourth grader Maggie Dycus, 10, fifth grader Aaron Williams, 11, and third grader Josh Beverly, 9, are avid Harry Potter fans. In fact, they can hardly put the books down.<P>“I’ve read them three times each,” Aaron counted.<P>Maggie’s read the first three a second time and is currently reading the fourth for a second time.<P>Aaron explained that each sequel is lengthier than the one before it.<P>“The last one is 736 pages,” he said -- and with few illustrations.<P>That might sound like quite a challenge for even an adult reader to tackle, but Maggie, Aaron and Josh say they don’t care how long the books are, they just enjoy reading them.<P>“I really got into it when the movie came out,” Josh remarked. He said it took him about six months to read the first three books.<P>“I’m on the last one right now,” he noted. “I”m right in the middle of it.”<P>Maggie and Aaron had a head start. Maggie started last summer, and Aaron started a couple of years ago. <P>“I read constantly,” Maggie said, a comment echoed by Aaron. Both also said they can now read entire Harry Potter books in a matter of just a few days.<P>“You really get excited when you read them,” Maggie commented. “They’ve got good plots ... They’re exciting, and they have lots of suspense.”<P>“They have a lot of action,” Aaron added.<P>Initially, Harry lives with his mean aunt and uncle, the Dursleys, and their son, Dudley. His room is a closet at the foot of their stairs. One day, he receives an invitation to a special school where he goes to learn to be a wizard.<P>Just call it escapism for kids.<P>Harry turns a year older in each book. And with each book building on the events of the previous, kids like Maggie, Aaron and Josh can’t wait to find out what will happen to Harry next.<P>Maggie said, so far, she likes Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban best. Aaron’s pick is Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Josh said he can’t decide on a favorite.<P>And Maggie, Aaron and Josh are not the only ones reading Harry Potter.<P>“Some of my friends have the books, too,” Maggie added.<P>Northside librarian Beverly Judd is particularly happy to see such young students engrossed in reading.<P>“I think children have always been ready for a good story, and that’s what Harry Potter gives them,” she said. <P>Judd attributed the success of Harry Potter to his relate-ability to kids and his challenge to them to use and develop their own imaginations.<P>“It’s a child’s struggle between good and evil, and the child wins,” she remarked.<P>Judd noted that students of varying ages, even high school age, are enjoying Harry Potter, and she said the books appeal to both genders. Furthermore, she said she has multiple copies of each of the Harry Potter books in the school library’s stock but that they’re constantly checked out by students who are hooked on Harry.<P>And for a librarian, that’s the goal. If the books are on the shelves, they’re not being read. When it comes to Harry Potter, Judd sees her students taking an interest and actually enjoying reading.<P>“Maggie’s always telling me what she thinks is going to happen in the next book. She comes up with all sorts of interesting things,” McGee smiled, thrilled at the possibility she might have a budding author in her class.<P>And as far as the movie goes, Maggie said she still prefers the books.<P>“You picture things differently in the books than the way it was in the movie,” she said, explaining that she likes imagining Harry’s world for herself. <P>“I would just rather read,” Aaron commented.<P>What? Did a seemingly normal 11-year-old boy just say he would rather read than watch a movie?<P>Yep. <P>But that’s the power of Harry Potter, and as far as Maggie, Aaron and Josh are concerned, they’re ready for more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yey! Way to go Dragon Girl - ha to all Harry Haters!

[Weber]

Harry Potter is a good read and if u want to go to a website about it then go to <A HREF="http://www.harrypotter.warnerbros.com/" TARGET=_blank>web page</A>

[Airetalathwen]

Just a curious thought to the above article on HP. It sounds to me, like these kids are hooked on Harry, not on reading. Has HP actually inspired them to take up OTHER books and read them? Or do they just re-read the same four books over and over again. That's what it seems like to me. I would like to see them get through a non-HP 736(?) page book.<P>As far as good literature goes, if you want to get your kids a jump-start on reading classics, HP is not a good choice. Real classic books have way much more description and depth, and would seem boring to someone who's Harry-hyped. Harry Potter is not classic literature. <BR>Ha, I even went from The Silmarillion to A Tale of Two Cities, and Dickens' seemed soooo boring.<P>Anyway, a question for those of you who have read the books AND seen the movie. Which do you like better and why?<P>I'm really curious to see what you say, so I'll hold my opinion until after some of you post your minds.<P>(Sorry, I guess I'm probably the most controversial person on this thread right now.)<P>~Airetalathwen

[Rosa Underhill]

I prefer books by far to any movie, the HP movie included. While I enjoyed the film, it was nothing to what I got from reading the books. Same with LotR: I love that movie, but I like the books even more! In fact, there was only one film which I might consider better than the book: Jurassic Park. (The book was really dark and I liked the expanded role of the female character in the film, too.)<P>Reading is, alwyas has been and always will be, one of the greatest staples in my life. I learn more from it and enjoy using my imagination in that way. Besides, I can't see movies all that well, so all the detail I get in the books is lost on me in the films. (The sound quality, though... )

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Ah, Controversy! (Maril rubs her hands together with glee.)<P>We seem to have three topics running through this thread:<BR>*The relative value of Harry Potter, how does it compare to the LotR, does it really encourage children to read?<BR>*Is HP really just a "commoners" book, well-pumped up by the marketing machine?<BR>*Does HP invoke (so to speak) witchcraft? And is violence or use of witchcraft caused by media images?<P>On the first point: HP is brilliant, funny, but only shares a genre with the LotR. It does get kids to read who otherwise don't, and anyone who's ever struggled to get a kid to just <I>try</I> to read would be happy if they read the cereal box. I doubt these HP kids will still only read HP when they're 40. But if my Tolkien obsession is any measure, they will probably re-read them, with their other books, many times and perhaps participate in a Potter-Downs Forum.<P>Marketing does not effect Rowling's humor or brilliance one iota. Marketing is a machine, it never cares whether a product is good or not, it just markets.<P>On media violence, Kalimac has the point of the day: exposure to violence did not begin with the invention of TV or video games. In the not-too-distant past hangings were the order of the day for such crimes as horse thieving.<P>On increasing witchcraft and magic due to popularized images of it... has anyone here ever levitated, or seen someone so much as levitate a feather? I would sign up for witchcraft in a heartbeat if I could just say "Illuminato" or whatever it is, and make a tiny ball of light hover about the room. That would be a blast! <P>Alas, I fear I must put off removing the electrical wiring from my place, because there is no such thing. What makes Hogworts so much fun is its impossibility.<BR>(Though given the way I treat my books, I guess I should be grateful they don't bite outside of Harry Potter.)

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Oh, on the HP movie vs. the book:<P>JK Rowling had too much control over the movie, so the movie was merely a shortened version of the book. Read the books. Nevermind the movie. There's only one good reason to see the movie: the moving stairs, which aren't (exactly) in the books.

[Luntindomeiel]

I think Harry Potter books are great and I personally think they have no similarity with Lord of the Rings or any ohter Tolkien book. Harry Potter still keeps the shape of a kids tale but it's really fun to read. You should try it.

[Emni Windrunner]

Ooh, I don't think I'll step in the messy pile of the media violence debate. I got my fill of that last semester when I wrote a paper stating that the tie between media violence and real-life violence is a myth based on faulty studies, for my Argumentative Research Writing class. (You guys can probably guess my opinion from that.)<BR>As far as kids reading more than just Harry Potter, I've heard that kids are expanding their repertoires beyond that to include other fantasy stories (e.g. Redwall) and even other genres. The trick is to show them that not all books are boring. Once they see that J.K. Rowling wrote something fun and exciting, they'll start exploring to see who else did the same thing. One of my friends is a fourth grade teacher (at a school where HP's been banned, ironically), and the kids in her class that have read HP are psyched about finding other lit, too.<BR>On the topic of book vs. movie, I'm one of those purists (except in rare cases, like <B>Jurassic Park</B>) who always likes the book better. In the case of an especially well-done movie, like PJ's <B>Lord of the Rings</B> or <B>Where the Heart Is</B>, I'll sometimes say I like both best. LOTR is kind of an odd case, though, because there wasn't room in the movie for so much of what makes the book good...so maybe there I still favor book over movie. In any case, it's literally the best movie I've ever seen in the theater, and it is officially my favorite movie, besides.<BR>In the case of Harry Potter, I like the books best, hands-down. Witty narrative doesn't translate to the screen, and the narrative is half the delight of HP. That's one reason I probably wouldn't appreciate any screen interpretation of latter-era Charles Dickens books--without his narrative and descriptions, those stories would be way too depressing. Still, that said, I like the Harry Potter movie and I think it was well-done, given that they couldn't translate the narrative.

[dragongirlG]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>We seem to have three topics running through this thread:<BR>*The relative value of Harry Potter, how does it compare to the LotR, does it really encourage children to read?<BR>*Is HP really just a "commoners" book, well-pumped up by the marketing machine?<BR>*Does HP invoke (so to speak) witchcraft? And is violence or use of witchcraft caused by media images?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Thanks for sorting out the topics!<P>I heard of LOTR because of HP. I was an HP freak last year or so and I was reading about the dumb "HP/LOTR" rivalry stuff, and that's how I heard of LOTR, before my English teacher made us read it in class. HP did also encourage me to read more; I looked for other fantasy books that were similar to HP and read them. (<I>The Iron Ring</I> by Alexander Lloyd is really good, if you want a stand-alone fantasy book.) <P>As for HP being a "commoners" book, I disagree with that. HP is brilliant, funny, and inventive...this was discussed on another message board on a different website <A HREF="http://www.countingdown.com/movies/harrypotter2/fancentral/board?viewpost=560172" TARGET=_blank>here</A>. Well anyway I think that without all the hype HP would still be very popular because the books are so well-written. <P>HP invoking witchcraft...I think that the ppl who said that were just paranoid of children becoming too smart. They didn't try to ban the Narnia Chronicles, LOTR, and other magic-involved books. Personally I think they're just stupid (no offense.) Besides, the whole witchcraft debate got people interested in reading HP, to see what the big deal was about. So their little plan for banning HP sort of backfired...it made people interested in HP! So HA to them. <P>Oh, and movie-book comparisons--I definitely liked the <I>HP</I> books better than the movie. The narrative is great in the books but the movie wasn't so smooth. I liked both the <I>LOTR</I> books and movie. PJ did a great job on the movie and it's a good movie all-around. Let's see...<I>Jurassic Park</I>...I watched the movie when I was really little so I don't remember it; the book is good though. I saw <I>Great Expectations</I> the movie on TV but never read the book. It was a weird movie anyway. <I>The Ice Storm</I>, never read the book but it's a good movie. <P>That's all I can think of for now...see ya later.<p>[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: dragongirlG ]

[Rosa Underhill]

Honestly, J.K. Rowling is nothing to Phillip Pullman. I try not to judge before experiencing, so I picked up "The Golden Compass"; got as far as chapter four before I got bored, irritated and was picking up some really nasty spiritual vibes. (I didn't like his God-bashing, to be blunt.) But I do understand that many folk like these books and I don't hold it against them, so long as they don't make me read them.<P>And anyone who likes HP might want to give these a try:<P>The Redwall books by Brian Jacques<BR>The Chronicles of Prydain by Lloyd Alexander<BR>The Enchanted Forest Chronicles by Patricia C. Wrede<BR>"Dragon's Bait" by Vivian Von Velde (?)<BR>"Dragon's Milk" and "Flight of the Dragon Kin" by I don't know who<BR>The Firebringer Trilogy by Merideth Ann Peirce<BR>"The Last Unicorn" by Peter S. Beagle<P>Okay, I have no idea why I just wrote up that list, but now you'll all have even more books to read should you ever run out!

[goldwine]

I know lots of librarians who have given kids LOTR/the hobbit to read when they ran out of Harry Potter - so I guess that part is true. The fantasy genre is taking off in a huge way but I really don't credit Harry with this! In terms of literary merit in Harry, I don't actually see much. But then I'm a librarian and I read about 100 books a year.<BR>I think that Harry is a step on the road to witchcraft and creates a lot of interest in it. How far down that road it takes you depends on you.<BR>I don't think the media can possibly cause violence. But popular media certainly condones and desensitises people to it, which must contribute to the problem.<BR>I agree 100% with you Rosa about philip Pullman - his books set off more spiritual alarm bells in me that Harry did.

[Jessica Jade]

(ok, first some ranting again...)<BR>I loathe the fact that anyone can BLAME the media for the violence in today's society. People need to be realistic. When you see someone steal something, or murder someone, or do drugs in a movie, does that make you want to go out and do it? Of course not. A movie is a movie, it's fiction (in general), and people know to leave it at that. Bad song lyrics and violent film scenes did not MAKE those kids shoot up their schools. People who do drugs did not start doing it because they saw movie characters doing it. Eminem and his mysogynistic lyrics are not causing people to hate women or gays. <P>It's true that young people might be influenced by the media...example-the way movies and TV shows make it look "cool" to have sex, smoke, party, get drunk...and so WHAT if the movies make that kind of stuff look cool? They cannot control what you do.YOU control what you do. And everybody is responsible for their OWN actions. To all those who blame the media for all the bad stuff that happens today...they need to get a life and stop finding excuses to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions. Also, if you remove violence from movies, you still see that kind of stuff in the News everyday. It's ridiculous to try to "save" kids shielding them from TV/movie violence. That goes for all those parents who don't let their kids watch rated-R or PG-13 movies. Do they think that they are actually accomplishing anything? Of course they aren't. Not to mention the fact that the when things are forbidden, their appeal becomes stronger.<BR>I think censorship is a bunch of bull too. So what if people on TV/movies say the F-word? It's not like you don't hear that word being spoken all the time on the street, at the mall, at the movies, in public in general. You know? I think it's right to censor nudity and stuff, because that's indecent (and pornography can be dangerous) but to censor language is utterly useless.<P>{that was my extended rant for the day.}<P>As for the LOTR movie vs. the books...<BR>The book is definitly better. Don't get me wrong now- i absolutely LOVE the movie. That was what inspired me to read the books. They had been highly recommended to me by some friends, but i had not given much consideration to actually reading them due to lack of time...but i saw the movie, and could not get enough of Middle Earth. Besdies, who would be stupid enough to wait to see what happens next when the books are available? The movie is incredibly well-made (considering what a daunting task it must have been for Peter Jackson to take all that and make it into an even decent movie)-the scenery is beautiful, the storyline flows, the acting is superb, and the soundtrack is grand. It's touching and i'll admit i even cried when Gandalf "died," and when Frodo leaves for mordor alone and sam almost drowns, and other parts. But the reason i like the book better is because of the intricate descriptions...Tolkien is a genius, and i LOVE the way he writes. He has that ability to bring such a vast, harmonious world into the readers mind, down to every last detail. I have the movie script, and i occasionally read it. Although it is well written, the book is still a thousand times better. It's more gripping, touching, sad, descriptive (i especially loved Lorien and Moria), and it's altogether more complete. <P>I think that the mistake they made when making the Harry Potter movie was that they tried to bring the entire book to life on the screen. They inevitably left some holes in the plot and it was targeted mainly for those who'd read the book. The ones who hadn't read them thought the movie was kiddy and boring. LOTR, on the other hand, was a great movie in itself and could stand alone from the book. PJ knew that he could not bring the entire book to life because that would result in excessive 6-hr + movies each . So he focused on a few main aspects of the story-mainly on Frodo's journey to Mordor to destroy the ring. ..that's why they left out Tom Bombadil and the Wights and the other stuff that wasn't extremely significant to Frodo's journey. They overplayed Arwen in order to increase the dynamic of the film with a romantic love story. In the films, everything was for a purpose...Sure, they left out a lot of stuff, and it was definitly missing, but it was not missed. I think Peter Jackson did they best job that anyone could have ever done. LOTR is definitly one of my favorite movies. The books are among my list of favorites as well. I acutally think that the book and movie are two totally different things. You have the movie...and you have the book. Both are incredible and thoroughly enjoyable. If the books didn't exist, LOTR would STILL be a great movie.<P>I agree about Harry Potter...read the books and forget about the movie. As for the writing style...when Rowling wrote HP, she wanted to entertain people, and she definitly accomplishes that purpose. Sure, there is an itty bitty bit of wisdom in the books as well, but nothing compared to LOTR. Tolkien does more than entertain the readers-he touches peoples heart(yea, i know how cheesy that sounds!) I'm saying this and i haven't even finished the whole series yet--i'm on Return of the King (chapter: The Seige of Gondor)and i still haev a long way to go. Based on the things that have been hinted to me about what's yet to come in LOTR...i'm dying to get through this book. And i have a feeling that at the end of the ROTK movie, it'll be a real tearjerker-i'll probably be bawling my eyes out. Although i have heard that they are leaving out Scouring of the Shire...it wouldn't reall be complete withough that would it? Erg it really makes me mad that they're leaving it out and i dont' see how it can be good without it..but we'll see...maybe it'll still be a great ending anyway.<P>Sorry for such a long post. Thanks a million for reading

[Rosa Underhill]

Hoo wee, you go girl! <P>I do, however, disagree strongly with you on the censoring of language. Take it from one who knows, words hurt. They hurt a lot and there is no way to unsay or undo the damage they can cause. We are barraged daily, almost everywhere, with indecent words. I see foul langauge as an excuse to stunt the growth of one's vocabulary and an ego enhancment, nothing more. In other words: tv is pointless enough already, do we really need to dumb it down further by adding curse words (more than are already present)?<P>And there is a law (rather ill inforced most places) that you must be 17 to get into an R rated movie. I support that. Seeing an R rated movie at home on the small screen is much less traumatic than seeing it larger than life at the theatre.<P>Okay. I'm done. Sorry y'all had t'see that...

[dragongirlG]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It's true that young people might be influenced by the media...example-the way movies and TV shows make it look "cool" to have sex, smoke, party, get drunk...and so WHAT if the movies make that kind of stuff look cool? They cannot control what you do.YOU control what you do. And everybody is responsible for their OWN actions. To all those who blame the media for all the bad stuff that happens today...they need to get a life and stop finding excuses to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions. Also, if you remove violence from movies, you still see that kind of stuff in the News everyday. It's ridiculous to try to "save" kids shielding them from TV/movie violence. That goes for all those parents who don't let their kids watch rated-R or PG-13 movies. Do they think that they are actually accomplishing anything? Of course they aren't. Not to mention the fact that the when things are forbidden, their appeal becomes stronger.<BR>I think censorship is a bunch of bull too. So what if people on TV/movies say the F-word? It's not like you don't hear that word being spoken all the time on the street, at the mall, at the movies, in public in general. You know? I think it's right to censor nudity and stuff, because that's indecent (and pornography can be dangerous) but to censor language is utterly useless.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, sorry Jessica, but I have to agree with Rosa Underhill on the censoring part. Also, parents may need to shield kids from bad movies/language because the kids may not be prepared to hear that kind of language or see that type of violence--they may not be able to handle what they saw. It may give the kids nightmares. (Come on, some kids still think "shut up" qualifies as cursing.) However, parents shouldn't shield their kids in such an obvious way--they shouldn't say "Oh you can't watch this, you're not old enough," because, as you said, it only arouses curiosity and the child will find some other way to do whatever was banned from them. They should shield their kids in a more subtle way.

[Emni Windrunner]

I have to say going into this post that language-censoring is pretty much off my radar screen. My father's daily vocabulary would put Kevin Smith characters to shame, so movies with excessive swearing tend to wash off me like water off a duck's back. I'm not at all saying I approve of language like that (I don't use it myself), just that I'm probably not a good person to address the topic of swearing in general, and in the media particularly.<BR>Well-said, dragongirlG, about how LOTR movie and books can be taken separately! You put into words what I was trying to figure out in my own head. Thank you for saying what I mean!<BR>I agree that banning something out of hand is the wrong way to go. There were movies that my parents told me I could see <I>with them</I> that, had they said, "No you can't see it at all," I'd have gone to a friend's house and asked to rent. But since my parents said I could see them provisionally, I didn't mind waiting until we could watch it together, because I knew my parents weren't putting me off and weren't trying to keep me under a rock. Now, I'm not saying my parents are the best role models ever (you read the first paragraph of this post; you know they're not), but I think they had it right with this one.<BR>That said, I think it's a bad idea to ban something like Harry Potter out of hand, for the simple reason that it draws attention to it as something forbidden, and if I'm an example of what a normal kid's like, that ups the likelihood of a kid who might somehow be susceptible to suggestion going out and reading Harry Potter. If that same kid is instead told that his mom will read it to him, or that he can read it when he's ready (which is what my mom told me when I wanted to go see <B>Schindler's List</B>), I think he'll be more likely to put off the exploration, which will in turn make him less likely to go off in a really strange direction with what he reads. Kids who have parents and teachers that are willing to take the time and effort to trust their kids a little, instead of laying down an ultimatum that saves them the effort of coming alongside of their kids, tend to be less open to the kind of dangers people say are posed by reading Harry Potter or seeing certain movies.

[Jessica Jade]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Well-said, dragongirlG, about how LOTR movie and books can be taken separately! You put into words what I was trying <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>erm, i believe that it was <I>I</I> who said that! *coughcough* !! <P>Hmmm, thanks for your opinion Rosa Underhill...you did make a good point about how dumb enough TV is already without foul language. I especially liked what you said about how foul language stunting the growth of a good vocabulary and as an ego-booster. I personally think <I>excessive</I> cussing just makes one sound dumb and immature, thinking that it's the "cool" thing to do. However, i believe that it is okay to cuss on occasion, but only if you <I>really</I> mean it. Over-using cuss words only lessens the impact of their meaning.<BR>About censoring the words, i originally thought it was annoying (i mean, think of how annoying it'd be if they censored Good Will Hunting!) but i can see your point about how dumb it sounds. TV/movie scripts <I>should</I> replace those words with intelligent ones.<P>As for seeing rated R movies....i agree that it's right for parents to forbid to see a movie if it is overly graphic or sexual or contains to much violence, or if they think their child cannot handle it. I DON'T like, however, when parents forbid their kids to see a movie <I>just because</I> it is rated R. It's the content of the movie that matters, NOT the rating.<BR>I was partly letting off some steam when i wrote what i wrote about rated R movies, because i was getting darn sick of overprotective parents who don't let their kids see pg-13 movies without exception..parents who just don't trust their kids without good reason. If the kid really can't be mature enough to see a certain movie, then fine, don't let them see it. But if they really are mature ebnough to see a little sex and violence, there's not reason to hold them back. It's just saying that you don't trust your kids, telling them that they are not mature enough. And people hate when others "just dont' trust them" without good reason. <P>You have to admit, some of the best movies are rated R. The Matrix, and American Beauty, espeically. For example, The latter is one i would definitly watch with my kids. (when i have them.)The fact that there is nudity and blunt sexuality in the movie is totally beside the point. It makes me angry when i mention the movie and everyone is like, "Ewww that movie was soo gross! it was nasty, blah blah blah..." It just makes me think, "Is that all you got out of it?" The movie makes such a moving, powerful TRUE point about American society and our lives in suburbia...it's a powerful film with a message that all should be exposed to. The point could not have been so well made without the sexual content. So it's like, let's all grow up a bit people, and be mature about this, okay? Now, a lot of parents would have seen the sex scenes and banned that movie then and there, not realizing what a great film (and powerful message) that they and their kids are missing out on.<P>I personally do not believe you should have to be 17 to see rated R movies. In reality, it depends on the maturity of each certain individual. But of course, there is no was for the FCC to know everybody, so they naturally set an age limit. It IS the parents job to decide, but they should make good conscious decisions about what their kids are exposed to-they should decide for themselves, and not be blinded by reviews or movie ratings. My parents have never been into that whole "You can't see this movie because it's rated R" kind of thing. They had no inhibitions when i watched Schindler's List at age 11 when i was in the 5th grade. The movie did not phase me a bit, and i know that i can see any movie on earth without being severely disturbed or frightened. And there ARE some 14 year olds out there that have much more maturity than some 17 year olds that i know. Sometimes i get annoyed because i'm 16 and i can't even go see an R movie by myself until i turn 17 in half a year...if i am old enough to drive alone i should be able to drive see R movies alone, right? The truth is, there really is no "right" age...parents shouldn't say to their kids, "you're not old enough, you can see it when you're 18 blah blah"...they should be more realistic and say "You'll be allowed to do this when you are ready."

Wow! Such long long posts! They took me ages to read!

[Airetalathwen]

Ah, wow, where to even start. This is a great discussion! And we've seem to come very far from Harry...<P>Umm, I guess I'll begin by saying I'm surprised that so many people (not even just on this board) like the HP books more than the movie. I found the first book very undescriptive, esspecially the second half, and so I thought people would enjoy the movie better becasue you could actually see the images and places that are not described very well in the book. <P> On the point about violence in the media, the thing that disturbs me the most, is: yes, there is a lot of violonce and drama in our everyday lives, so why do we need to go and enterain ourselves with fake drama? Why would I want to have fun watching "Collateral Damage" with Arnold Shwatzenager (coming to theaters soon in the USA at least) when I can watch the World Trade Centers collapsing, and thousands of real people loose their lives. It's so very very sad that we have to make up our own violent dramas, as if there aren't enough in everyday life. And then, it's a vicious circle! People getting used to violence by watching movies, so they get bored and go and make more movies....and yes, violent movies <B>DO</B> effect us! Kids did not blow people away in schools when my mom was little!! (And what do you know, there also happened to be less violence on TV too! ) Why do people swear so much now? Because Hollywood (and many many other movie industries) helped VERY much to make it popular!! It starts very slowly, and takes many generations to get it going like we have it now, but kids growing up and watching a lot of TV see other kids on TV using some word or another, and eventually they may find it slipping out of their mouth. Oops! But, there! That wasn't so hard to say! Hmm. Then another word. Etc... This all happens so gradually that the society isn't even aware of it, and it's very very subtle. 'Ah, come on, it's only one little word.' (Men didn't even use to swear in front of ladies, let alone the ladies swearing! )<BR> Humans like to be shocked. And thrilled. Look at our theme parks, look at our fashions, look at our movies... We are always taking it to the next step. When we get bored with whatever shocking thing it is, we step it up a notch. The romans became so bored with life that they had live killings, because everything else was boring. They still wanted to be thrilled, and that was the way they could get it. <P>Just something interesting to think about...<P>I'm not all against R movies, I have seen and own some. (Matrix is one of my favortie movies!!) And I think the main answer for kids is to have parents talk to them about when they are allowed to see a movie, and why they are not allowed to see it now. And if they are allowed to see a movie, to talk about the objectional things and why you should not do them, etc. Out right forbidding them is just asking for trouble! Curiousity is a powerful thing, and cannot be held back too far. It would be better to expose them in a controled environment, instead of letting the kid find out on his own (becasue they always will anyway). <BR>Man, on the other hand, there are some movies adults shouldn't go see...!<P>Sorry for the long post! I hope some of you will have to think as much to read this as I did to write it! I can try to explain in more detail later if any are confused, but I have run out of time for now! <P>~Airetalathwen

[Daisy Sandybanks]

I know the topic has probley changed since the first post, and that I did no get to read every single post since some were very long, and I do not have very much time, but I still want to have my say-so in this discussion.<P>First of all, I beleive that the four Harry Potter books were a wonderful read, especially if you want somthing quick to read through (it took me like two days to read the first book). And if you want somthing pretty easy to read as well, Tolkiens and Anne Rice's books were a major step up compard to Harry Potter (in my opinion at least). I actually was really dissatisfyed with the Harry Potter movie, I know the books are childrens books, though anyon else can read them, as I have done, the movie really felt like I was sitting through a Disney cartoon (and don't get me worng, I absolutly love Disney moivies). I felt as though they spent way to much time on certian parts of the movie than others.<P>Well, thats my little say-so in this...

[Lush]

Ah, so many nice, good, righteous people gathered on one thread. Where is red?... <BR>I have already had my say regarding the Harry Potter series (loved it so much that I even became a little, eh, chummy with a boy who just happens to look like dear old Harry ). <BR>About censorship; my opinions on it are not fully formed. I appreciate innocence, but over-protection from the real world often makes it harder for children in the long run. I think that overall, parents should raise their own damn kids, and stop asking the government and the media to do it for them. <BR>As for foul language-when it comes to speaking English, I am a confirmed potty-mouth. That probably has something to do with the fact that this <I>is</I> by second language, and the idea that the F word & others are <I>bad</I> was never ingrained in my subconscience. I'm never that bad when it comes to speaking Russian. Not much of a comfort to the Americans around me though, eh?

[Emni Windrunner]

Sorry, Jessica Jade! My little brain went fizz! Thank <I>you</I> for saying what I meant, and no offense at all! I'm scattered, I admit it! <buries her face in her hands>

[Emni Windrunner]

There are documented incidents of school shootings in California and New England dating back as early as the early '70s. The only reason we know more about the recent ones like Columbine (please excuse my attitude on this particular incident; I'm from Denver and sick of hearing about it) is that TV violence as an eeeevil influence is a big issue now, and it wasn't so much back then. Back in the day they actually looked for what went wrong in the shooters' heads, instead of blaming a convenient scapegoat.

[Rosa Underhill]

You're from Denver, Emni? Cool! So am I!<P>There were school shootings even earlier than the '70s. A student was shot at my old school in it's early years (over 125 years ago). He wasn't killed, but that doesn't change the fact that a teacher shot him.