Hey guys, I got this article of an HP website and I thought it was humorous, mostly. But, if you think, because it isn't exactly pro-Harry Potter, that you might be offended (as were the people at this website) then I would recommend not reading it. You have been warned.
From the Los Angeles Times Editorial Section
Sunday, July 10, 2005
Joel Stein
Next Saturday, when the sixth Harry Potter book comes out, at the very least I want you to stammer excuses when I see "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" on your nightstand. I want you to claim you're reading it to make sure it's OK for your kids, or your future kids, or even, if you have to, for kids in general.
I don't want you to tell me how well J.K. Rowling writes, or that academics are writing papers about it, or that Harry Potter can be read on many levels. "Clifford the Big Red Dog" can be read on many levels too: One, he's a big red dog; two, if you read it after you're 4, you're a moron.
I read 50 pages of the first "Harry Potter" book, and it seemed witty, imaginative and fast-paced. It also seemed like it was for children. It's about wizards and magic cats and evil stepparents, and has a reading-level that is only slightly above this column.
Judy Blume wrote well too, but you don't see adults poring over "Freckle Juice" on the train. No matter how well-crafted "Harry Potter" may be, I'm betting that with a little work you could find an adult novel from the last three centuries that is nicely written too, and possibly explores characters with a shade more complexity.
I know reading is hard. I try to avoid it whenever possible. But if I'm going to sit down and read a book, I'm going to get something out of it other than the ability to have a conversation with my second wife, who isn't even born yet.
I'm sorry you were born too late for J.K. Rowling, but you had your C.S. Lewis and E.B. White and J.R.R. Tolkien. Isn't it a clue that you should be ashamed of reading these books past puberty when the adults who write them are hiding their first names?
I'm sure the Potter books are fun. I bet a night of Fun Dip, piñatas and Sit N Spin would be great too. I think I may have a film to pitch to Cinemax.
After a generation of boomers choosing to remain in a state of stunted adolescence--wearing jeans, smoking pot and cranking their BMW stereos to blast Eminem songs they clearly don't like--the next generation has opted for a stunted toddlerhood. Adults see "Finding Nemo" without bothering with the socially accepted ruse of dragging an unwilling 11-year-old nephew along. Grown men play video games and couples go to Disneyworld on their honeymoon, often for reasons other than having sex in Cinderella's castle with the dwarfs watching.
When we share our entertainment palette with the Wiggles set--watching comic book movies and teenage singing talent shows — we deny an attempt to understand human emotion.
I took both my grandmothers to see the Warner Bros. movie about the first "Harry Potter" book because Aaron Brown let me fulfill my ultimate media dream by having them review it live from Mama Ann's condominium.
In addition to Mama Ida claiming that one of the kids was hard to understand because she might have been English and referring to the special effects as "scenery," my grandmothers eventually made the one cogent point that other reviewers missed: The story is stupid if you're over 13.
A culture that simplifies its entertainment down to fairy tales is doomed to simplify the world down to good and evil. And a culture in which adults go see the "Harry Potter" movies still won't be enough to help the useless Time Warner options I got in the '90s, so you might as well buy something from the back of the bookstore instead. You won't have to wait in line for "Ulysses."
4 comments:
All that did was make me angry, but I guess I'm not in the greatest mood. I plan on liking Harry Potter as an adult.
Alright, well, I said don't read it if there was a possibility of you not liking it. I want to read HP as an adult too.
Lol, did I mention I wasn't in the greatest mood when I wrote that? :) Of course I would ignore any warnings like that. (If you have no clue what I'm talking about, read my blog "entry" cough*rant*cough)
I read the article and I then I remembered that the Los Angles Times is one of the most 'liberal' news papers in the country second only to the New York Times. The reason why I think the source of the article is important is that media liberals are the same people who preach open-mindedness and free speech while there actions suppress anyone in disagreement and bash any thought deeper than the 'here and now'. These are the same people who brought us ‘politically correct’—lets use Freedom of Speech to suppress Free Speech. Can anyone else see a contradiction here?
The reason why this columnist is bashing Harry Potter, I believe, is because he is afraid to think about the deeper meanings that J.K. Rowlings presents in her writings. She pushes people to think about the underlining meanings of what is actually happening. Let's think about this for a minute, where have we seen 'Mud Bloods' real life society--people being treated like an outcast because of their family heritage? Or people being treated like the 'red headed bastard child'? If this hasn’t been apart of a personal life experience then chances are someone close has lived the nightmares. Inspiration comes from those who overcome the bonding chains with strong-will; such is the story of Harry Potter. That is why so many people connect with ‘the world’ of Harry Potter. Lets be real, lets be honest. The person who wrote this article is probably someone who watched the Lion King called it a child’s movie and never caught the true meaning and context of the 'goose stepping' hyenas.
Post a Comment