Character Analysis Through the Lens of my Broken Spectacles

Now I know I may have ruffled a few feathers about my disagreement with banning the Harry Potter series. I did not mean to come across saying anyone had bad parents. Globally, I think the government should not tell us what we can and cannot read. It is the role of the parent to guide their children. However, I think my parents handled this area of my life the best, despite their flaws. See my mother encouraged me to read and connect with the characters, because she believed if I could get through these huge novels in the second grade with ease, I would have a chance in college. When my father's small group questioned him in allowing me to read the series, he asked me what I was getting from the books. When I told him that I was seeing reflections of me in the characters and noticing their flaws and how they overcome evil, he relaxed. He knew I was more of a mature critical thinker than his peers.  

Now I may be way too much of a nerd/fan when I say this, but when I hear the theme song of Harry Potter, it brings me back to the good parts of my childhood. For me, reading the books, waiting in the obnoxiously long lines at the theater, and going to the midnight release of the last book were some of the best highlights of my life. Through Harry, I made my best friends, forgave my parents, and learned to give people a chance. As I look in the Mirror of Erised, I see the reflections of Malfoy, Hermione, and Harry in myself. 

I see myself in Malfoy. I do not like it. I am unsettled and squirm when I recognize this. I feel as though the sorting hat is pushing me into it, but the truth is: the flaws you dislike the most in someone, are usually the flaws you have yourself. Malfoy is the very opposite of Harry and has a pervasive sense of entitlement, snobbery, and is generally unpleasant character. I recoil a little when I recognize myself acting out these characteristics. I feel like it is so easy to judge Malfoy, but really, are we all naturally like him? Rowling includes Malfoy to be a foil to Harry’s character, so that you can see how unlikable Malfoy is and appreciate Harry’s kindness and generosity so much more. As I look into the mirror, I need to remind myself how I can become Malfoy so easily if I let my selfish pride take over. Malfoy is also a reminder that at Hogwarts (or life in general), Harry (I) will not be surrounded simply by kindness, but will have to face unpleasantness as well.

I easily connected with Hermione. Growing up, I was always the annoying perfectionist, goody-two-shoes, with my hand enthusiastically stuck up in the air, never breaking the rules. I can even see my younger self in her as I wanted to impress people with my knowledge, but like most people, Harry only wanted to make friends. Hermione and I most likely developed this front to be a defense against our feelings of inferiority, because she comes from a Muggle family (and I come from a divorced, poor, mixed race family). Hermione becomes likable when she makes herself vulnerable and lies to the teacher as she has recognized that loyalty, compassion for others is more important than a score on any exam. 

Of course, I really want to see my self in Harry Potter, especially since he is the hero of the story. Although I was not orphaned as a baby, I have felt toatally alone. When my parents began their long drawn out bitter custody battle, I remember feeling orphaned. I felt like I had no one I could trust. Just like Harry, I felt neglected and disdained, timid  and unsure of my abilities. His Cinderella story is certainly inspiring, because instead of becoming the Malfoy he could easily be as the famous Boy Who Lived, he remains to be the same old Harry. After he becomes famous, Harry never loses his modesty and humility. Harry’s capacity for loyal friendship is one of his most attractive features. This and overcoming his early loneliness is almost as inspiring as his defeat of evil Voldemort. I hope that I will reflect Harry's loyalty and humility, no matter how famous I may or may not be. 

Changes from book to movie, a deprivation of an experience

I am so very disappointed in Hollywood and their inability to do honor to certain books including Harry Potter. Let me start this out by saying that by no means to I feel like I was deprived of a proper storytelling when I watched the movies several years ago, that however doesn't change how much I missed in simply watching the movie. J.K. Rowling spent a lot of time describing the Dursley’s and who they were for a reason, however there was only ten minutes of actual time spent on them in the movie. The same goes for Diagon alley, this is an important place in the wizarding world, famous and established. It is literally the only place you can go for Hogwarts supplies it seems yet I have only seen a few minutes of the place in the movies.

I am enjoying this book so much as an adult I only wish that my younger self had read the book before watching the movie because meaning of people change. Even Neville Longbottom has greater importance in the book than movies. There is so much that was changed in order to fill in time placements but that doesn't excuse how much we miss as spectators instead of readers. I am disappointed in how much I have missed out on, and also how much more I understand about the Harry Potter world. I didn't even know that Hagrid had been expelled from Hogwarts, I simply thought that’s where he ended up after he graduated.

I feel movie makers should take more care when filming because yes, you do want to tell a good story, but the movie is based on a book with an already good story, so why change anything at all?

The Circus Has Come To Town

    "Mr. and Mrs. Dursly, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much."


    This well known opening sentence is from Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone and was what spurred quite a bit of discussion this week in class.  There were various comments about "the other" in the novel, and to which Harry actually belonged.  One thought that seemed to continue to prod me was this: Why be normal?
    Of course, there must be normalcy in order to have otherness and a sense of not belonging in a character.  There would be no story if there wasn't a conflict, and, from the very first sentence the readers are put on pins and needles.  In a world where we are constantly being told to act more normal we have a sentence that almost sneers at the idea.  One cannot help but read this statement with their nose in the air and a superior tone, mocking the status quo from the very start.
    This sets the tale in motion and has all of the readers asking the question, why be normal?  If that haughty attitude is what it requires, then, is it something we really wish to achieve?  Or should we strive to be different than the carbon copies we see prancing down the street?
    The Dursly's, as we come to know them, are vain and spiteful creatures that we want no part of, they are the other, the muggles, that witches and wizards strive to distance themselves from, and it is no wonder that the readers so gladly leave normal behind.  Do we really want to be exactly like these loathsome people or do we want to go and explore new things and be part of a varied society?
   When we reach Hogwarts we find that normalcy is hardly anything like the Dursly's with their sameness, but we find different houses and different interests, we see people learning to discover themselves rather than become just like everyone else.
   It is an adventure that is set about by that opening line, one that calls us to question why we would ever want to be like that.  Through the book, and through the series, we get further away from the "normal" that the Dursly's strive to be and become instead, not just wizards and witches, but individuals who know our strengths, weaknesses, flaws, and we embrace the beauty of not being normal at all.

Home and Not Back Again: John Carter of Mars Film Review

Jean-Marc Saint Laurent

30 March 2014

Dr. D. Smith

British Fantasy Literature

Home and Not Back Again: John Carter of Mars Film Review

            In the same way that The Godfather was in its essential elements a story about the inseparable bonds of familial dedication and loyalty, so is Disney’s John Carter of Mars the involved narrative of one man’s journey to recover the home he’d long lost.

Plot Outline    

The film follows Captain John Carter of the Virginian Confederate Calvary in the calamitous atmosphere of a post Civil War America: threats come on all sides from the Native American inhabitants, Union soldiers wanting to enlist the ex-soldier against his will, and the recurring nightmares of his past failures. By the time the audience gets the chance for a good character study of Carter, we find him a violent, cynical drunk with an obsession for finding some famed cave of gold, which through a series of happenstance allows Mr. Carter to find himself on the planet Mars, called Barsoom by its native inhabitants.

            The film, this viewer argues, carefully treads the demarcations of what constitutes stereotypical fantasy and science-fiction. While the earlier stories are often classified as the latter, this narrative displays several features of the fantastical ethos: 1) an environmental narrative: the planet of Barsoom  is being harvested for energy by her enemies, the Thurn, who claim immortality and shape-shifting among their many abilities, 2) a story of universal appeal: much of the plot focuses on the possession of the Nine Ray Power, the apparent life force of Mars, 3) creatures alien to the viewer: Barsoom is a world home to a plethora of fantastical creatures, including the green humanoid Tharks, the monstrous white apes, and some unnamed elephant-like animals with  legs as numerous as a spider’s.

Story Elements Requiring Further Analysis

Gender Politics

Although one might be tempted to fit John Carter of Mars into the mold of the stereotypical the hero-damsel narrative (I certainly tried—it’s just easier that way), the film pleasantly defies many expectations. Both women and men are enlisted in military combat. While this is a Disney film, meaning there is an unspoken expectation for the male to play hero at least once to the gender opposite, Dejah Thoris, a sort of warrior professor princess, handles her own affairs throughout most of the film: sword fighting and intermittently mocking Carter for his original belief early in the film that she would require his protection . This is not to say the character does not have her low moments; in one scene, the character, having found herself nearly abandoned by the film’s protagonist, pleads on her knees for his help. In addition, Dejah is readily given in marriage by her father to a rival king, or Jeddak in order to make peace.

Manifestations of Power

In Mars, just as on Earth, sources of power throughout the film show themselves to be science, violence and religion. Writers Andrew Stanton, Mark Andrews, and Michael Chabon do something quite interesting with religion and science by tying them together. The blue power of the Nine Rays (likely signifying the nine planets, or a universal power) is wielded by the Thurns who are messengers and assassins for the Goddess Isus. The special power constructs pathways, operates machinery, tortures enemies and decimates cities. The power of religion soon also wins over John Carter who willingly begins swearing oaths in the name of the Goddess and making Martian religious talk his own.

Class Hierarchcies

            Barsoom is divided amongst military regions, where there appears to be no obvious exercise of individual will: all inhabitants attend public gatherings without protest, wear similar clothing and work to serve the needs of royalty.

Final Word

Largely considered a box office flop due to the exorbitant amount of money Disney put into the project—some estimates find the studio would needed to have been one of the top 63 films of all times to see any profit—John Carter of Mars stands on its own as a science-fiction/fantasy film worth its mettle and further analysis from would be critics.

Harry and Kierkegaard

So I’m going to look into Harry and Voldemort as they are portrayed in Harry Potter series, on the basis of existential philosophy. I’ve seen a few blogs that argue the outlook of this branch of philosophy provides a thorough framework for the interpretation of characters and objects in the world of Harry Potter. Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort are not only the protagonist and antagonist of the series, but also represent two sides of the spectrum of existential struggle. By mainly focusing on death, love, and free will Harry and Voldemort’s attempts to fulfill their true potential can be explored and analyzed from a very in depth existential outlook. While they share similar backgrounds and qualities, Harry is argued to represent the ideal being, possessing additional qualities that Voldemort does not. Because of these Harry’s actions and choices concerning his existence prove to be very different from Voldemort’s. While Voldemort’s sole purpose in life appears to be to overcome nonbeing: to achieve immortality, Harry accepts his existence for what it is, he accepts his freedom and free will, his impending nonbeing, and does not attempt to overcome it, and he therefore also accepts his anxiety. Harry is consequently argued to act as, and become, an ideal being, while Voldemort succumbs to his anxiety in his attempt to overpower death, and is ultimately destroyed by it, indicating that his actions are not those of a complete being. Hence, Harry and Voldemort’s actions appear to represent the two sides of existential psychology: the human awareness of existence affects the individual’s choices, and actions. Harry symbolizes the ideal being, while Voldemort is the deterrent example of how not to act if one wishes to fulfill one’s potentials, and preserve one’s being. In Rowling’s portrayal of Harry and Voldemort both Harry and Voldemort lost their parents at a young age, providing them with an awareness of the impending loss of their existence, or mortality. This suggests that their awareness of existence is enhanced: they have experienced nonbeing, through the deaths of others, and are therefore more aware of what it means to exist. In addition to sharing similar qualities, they share similar pasts, and an awareness of death. This indicates that they have rather equivalent foundations on which to build their selves. They therefore serve as prime examples of how an individual can succeed and fail in the attempt to develop, and preserve, his/her being. However, while their backgrounds are similar, their actions, and the motives behind these, reveal significant differences. Within Rowling’s fictional world, the protagonist Harry is here argued to represent the ideal being, while Voldemort, as antagonist, represents the unsuccessful attempt to fulfill one’s potential.

Racism in the World of Harry Potter

     The books of Harry Potter have a clearly defined sense of racism and it's never soon as a positive thing. Voldemort had a specific hatred to Muggles even though he himself was half Muggle. When he was Tom Riddle he said, "Surely you didn't think I was going to keep my filthy Muggle father’s name?" Voldemort had so much hatred for the Muggles that he wanted to wipe them out completely which is very reminiscent of the Holocaust. If the Dark Lord would have been successful in his plans something like what happened to the Jews would have been imitate.

     The Malfoy's also had a hatred for non-wizarding humans, or really anything less pure in blood then them. Draco bullied Hermione and Harry because he had learned racism from his parents. 

     On the other end of this there are Muggles aware of the Wizarding World who were hostile toward it and accepting. The Dersley's hated Harry because he was a Wizard and because Mrs. Dersley's sister married a different type of person then they would have liked. The entire time Harry lived with them hey treated him less than humanely and were afraid that Harry will do something Wizardly that will embarrass them. While the Dersley's were horrible people who hate wizards there were the Grangers. Both were Muggles yet they had a Witch for a daughter and they were completely supportive.

     I think J.K. Rowling did a good job showing that while bad people may have certain feelings to a group of people not everyone is like that. Those who are good don’t see a difference in people just because of one small, unimportant factor in their genetics or way they act.

The Four Houses of Hogwarts

"'Know what house you'll be in yet?'

'No,' said Harry, feeling more stupid by the minute.

'Well, no one really knows what until they get there, do they, but I know I'll be in Slytherin, all our family have been -- imagine being in Hufflepuff, I think I'd leave, wouldn't you?'" (Rowling, 60). 

During our last class period, we discussed the otherness in Harry Potter in regards to the 'Muggle' and wizard communities. The character of Harry Potter seems to be always moving to and away from otherness in the series -- toward otherness in the eyes of Muggles and away from it in the wizarding world. With the idea of otherness already complicated, the matter becomes even more interesting when the four houses of Hogwarts are introduced. 

As seen in the above excerpt from the novel, distinctions among the houses are made almost immediately. In fact, they are made before Harry even arrives at Hogwarts. Interestingly, the houses are first introduced with bias – from the perspective of Draco Malfoy. According to this character, the Slytherin house is desirable and the Hufflepuff house is shameful. Because Harry does not like Draco from the start, however, he calls this opinion into question. Later, he asks Hagrid what the houses mean:

"'Everyone says Hufflepuff are a lot o’ duffers, but—'

'I bet I’m in Hufflepuff' said Harry gloomily.

'Better Hufflepuff than Slytherin,' said Hagrid darkly. 'There’s not a single which or wizard who went bad who wasn’t in Slytherin.” (61)

Hagrid helps Harry redefine these two houses, and Harry seems much more willing to trust his opinion than Draco Malfoy’s. He believes his opinions of the houses so well, in fact, that he never allows Hagrid to continue his assessment of Hufflepuff’s past the 'but—'.

Hermione and Ron also offer their opinions of the Hogwarts houses. During their journey to the wizarding school, Hermione meets Ron and Harry and rapidly states her apparently needed views: “I’ve been asking around and I hope I’m in Gryffindor, it sounds by far the best… but I suppose Ravenclaw wouldn’t be too bad” (79-80).

Ron, who is recognized by Harry as a good character and unlike Malfoy, tells Harry that his brothers and parents were accepted into Gryffindor. “I don’t know what they’ll say if I’m not” he says, “I don’t suppose Ravenclaw would be too bad, but imagine if they put me in Slytherin” (80). This quote by Ron Weasley is in direct contrast to Draco Malfoy’s at the beginning of the story, when the houses are first introduced to Harry.

Harry is therefore given two biased opinions of the houses before he arrives and choses which one to believe long before the Sorting Ceremony. He choses the view of Ron and Hermione because he feels that it is best – seemingly because he judges them to have better characters than Draco. When meeting Draco, Harry almost immediately assigns character traits of Dudley, the hated cousin, to him and consequently likes him “less and less” (60). Ron’s views of the houses, on the other hand, are not called into question at all.

Here, as in other places in this text, the reader encounters strong bias that is not called into reason by the main character. Interestingly, Hermione, Ron, and Draco all base their assumptions on what they have heard from others (Ron and Draco from their families and Hermione from her peers) and not on logical deductions. Instead of reserving judgment of the houses until he arrives, Harry allows his opinions to be shaped by other’s intuition as well his own intuition, and not on reason. 

Right away, readers are given the same choice that Harry is. Do readers follow Harry's path of intuition? Or should they abandon logic and embrace bias with Harry so that they can continue on with him? Is it good that Harry choices to believe in the goodness of character rather than in reasoning judgment or does it discredit his eventually battle with evil? In the end, isn't it Harry's intuition that saves the day?

The Hogwarts houses play an important part in this novel, as well as in the rest of the series. There is much more that can be said about their place, especially the dichotomy between Gryffindor and Slytherin and the members within them. Perhaps most interesting are the cases of Severus Snape being sorted in Slytherin despite his qualities of bravery, and Harry Potter being placed into Gryffindor after specifically requesting it from the sorting hat. As the first introduction of the houses in the novel will show, the houses are essential to this story and should therefore be considered carefully to gain a better understanding of the story.

When Hermoine Became a Real Boy

“Although our self perceptions are fairly stable over long periods of time, they can be made to shift temporarily, flowing across established boundaries with changes in various factors, such as whom we are with, what immediate goals we have, which aspects of the self are currently prominent, and which roles we are instructed to play…

We are not suggesting that individuals with overlapping identities confuse their physical being or situations with those of the other. If one were to stub a toe, we would not expect the other to experience the same localized, sharp pain—although, tellingly, the other might wince in a different sort of pain”—Robert B. Cialdini, Stephanie L. Brown, et. al., Arizona State University,  “Reinterpreting the Empathy-Altruism Relationship…”

“‘Miss Granger, you foolish girl, how could you think of tackling a mountain troll on your own?’

            Hermoine hung her head. Harry was speechless. Hermoine was the last person to do anything against the rules, and here she was, pretending she had, to get out of trouble. It was as if Snape had started handing out sweets.”—J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, pg. 178

When Harry and Ron are first able to lock the troll into a single chamber, they are apparently pleased with their quick thinking and execution, as they have just evaded horrible death; however, when it becomes evident that they’ve locked it in the same area as Hermoine, they are not hesitant to confront the beast. Also most interesting is the lie Hermoine tells her teachers in order to excuse Ron and Harry from punishment for saving her life.

What are we to make of this?

Has Rowling developed for us a world of inhumanly altruistic creatures that always do the “right thing?” While some might argue the question in the affirmative, let us for a moment retreat from such a simple understanding of the wizard tale, as there may be a more plausible explanation for the selflessness portrayed in this portion of the text.

Researchers Robert Cialdini, Stephanie Brown and their colleagues, in studying the altruism response in human beings have suggested that it is not necessarily the result of some innate pure goodness. Their understanding is a bit more economical.

In our communications with other people, we are regularly needing to interpret several facets of it including intention, desire, meaning, subtext (and the list goes on).

For example, if you’d grilled up some tasty burgers for a party you’re set to have in 15 minutes and one of your guests who has arrived early responds to your invitation to eat with “I’m good, thanks,” you are suddenly tempted then to internally explain the denial: perhaps they are hungry yet polite enough to wait for others, perhaps they are on a diet, perhaps they are a vegetarian and therefore offended by your invitation (and the list goes on).

It is with this practice that one develops the ability to perceive the world through the eyes of the other, to empathize, and which under moments of particular adversity, this experience develops into oneness, or the sense of shared interest, struggles, hopes and fears.

Since feeling guilt, fear, and hopelessness of the other isn’t a comfortable experience, we intervene, in turn, to stop what has become our own suffering. This is why the untested Ron and Harry are willing to take on a vicious troll (that could tear them to bits) in the girls’ bathroom (forbidden territory for them).

So when Hermoine takes the blame for the often mischievous boys, she’s already taken on their interests, and therefore, it would seem to her that she truly was the culprit of such acts.

Ode to Hermione

I grew up in a domestic culture that contained very little selective censorship. The only real qualm I remember either parent raising about a certain art media was when my father declared that he'd rather us watch Mulan than the quintessential Disney princess movies because the Chinese warrior portrayed a much more empowering role model for young women. That being said, I was a voracious reader of Harry Potter books, and so were all my friends.

In fact, it wasn't until after I came to know the Lord as a 12-year-old that I had any real idea of the fact that parents were forbidding their children to read these stories on account of religious grounds. This, however, had nothing to do with me or my friends as we stood in line to grasp the newest Harry volume from the shelves of the nearest Barnes & Noble at the stroke of midnight. We had no idea of the war that was being waged on the "moral" front between parents and children, we only knew how the text affected us personally, and that was to plant in us a deep-rooted obsession with education.

I read the first book as a second-grader, and was immediately enthralled with the life of a Hogwarts student. Unlike the halls of my own elementary school, where I was laughed at for being in the advanced reading group, and scolded by my teacher for writing a creative story that was yards and yards of lined paper taped together instead of a single page, Hogwarts students were encouraged to learn freely and study broadly in the subjects that most interested them.

Obviously, the character I most identified with and learned from was that of Hermione Granger. Her emergence as a role model in my life meant that while my friends were chasing boys on the playground, I was running away from them to go read or invent an elaborate game of my own imagining with my closest friends. Her brassy and unashamed persona as a young scholar and a female convinced me that I would be no less bright and outgoing, and in later years that would become one of the most valuable things in my life.

I never have, and never will, understand what concerned parents call the "danger" of reading Harry Potter books, but I can say confidently that young women everywhere who decide to read these books are in great danger of intellectual confidence and liberation. And I'm okay with that.

Harry Potter and the Prophecy

          Having just finished Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone for the second time (I read it for the first time in my life this summer) I am curious as to whether or not the existence of a prophecy is essential to the protagonist in fantasy literature. My first instinct is to say emphatically yes. The prophecy is what gives the hero his or her purpose throughout the adventure and eventually leads to him or her becoming queer. To back up this line of thought in the context our our class, I would cite the The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, The Hobbit, and Phantastes. However, after reading Harry's and Dumbledore's last conversation in the final chapter of the book, as well as reviewing the initial telling of the Potter's death, I am not so sure. 

          In the aforementioned conversation between Harry and Dumbledore, Harry asks a question: "...Voldemort said that he only killed my mother because she tried to stop him from killing me. But why would he want to kill me in the first place?" Although Harry has already made it through the first of many adventures and is well on his way to becoming queer (at least from a muggle perspective) Harry has yet to hear of the prophecy that has shaped his life and utterly changed his future. All he knows is that Voldemort has killed his parents and now wants him dead. It is also made clear in Chapter 1: The Boy Who Lived that no one quite knows why Voldemort wanted to get rid of Harry.  J. K. Rowling does this in the conversation that McGonagall and Dumbledore have just before Hagrid arrives at number four Privet Drive with the infant Harry. The conversation goes as follows: 

          "That's not all. They're saying the tried to kill the Potter's son, Harry. But - he couldn't. He couldn't kill that little boy. No one knows why, or how, but they're saying that when he couldn't kill Harry Potter, Voldemort's power somehow broke - and that's why he's gone."

          Dumbledore nodded glumly, 

          "It's - it's true? faltered Professor McGonagall. "After all he's done... all the people he's killed... he couldn't kill a little boy? It's just astounding...of all the things to stop him...but how in the name of heaven did Harry Potter survive?"

          "We can only guess," said Dumbledore. "We may never know."

Now, we can question whether or not Dumbledore is telling the whole truth and if you read far enough in the series you will discover the answers to these questions, however that leads us to ask the question: Should we read  each book as separate faerie stories or are they intertwined and inseparable? I, of course, don't know the answer. I also don't know if the prophecy is essential or if we have made it essential. Any thoughts?

Should Children Read Harry Potter

Firstly, I would once again like to mention that I had never read any Harry Potter before this class.  I decided to get a head start during spring break, however.  I read the first installment and watched the movie, intending to write the film review, and could not stop.  I finished the entire series (with the exception of Book 3 because I could not find it in the library) and watched two of the movies within the week of spring break.  I like the series.  Even though it is primarily written for children, the story itself is gripping.  Perhaps it is because I did nothing over spring break except to read the books, but when I closed the last one, I was tired.  I felt as if I had aged alongside Harry.  I think that this sort of quality in a story is profound.*

That is beside the point.  I like the story, but is it really good for children to read?  Points have been made that children are not really naïve enough to believe that fiction is real.  If that is the case (and I think that it is), what is the danger in allowing children to read about wizardry? 

The rhetorical answer would be none.  However, I do think there is some danger.  True, they probably will not decide to run off to Hogwarts because they think it is a real place.  But think of the enormous amounts of money Disney makes off of little children wanting Disney toys and costumes.  Little girls walk around dressed as their favorite princess.  Children may know that these characters are not real, but they still want to be like them.  The difference between this and children looking up to Harry Potter is that there is such a thing as wizardry – there is no such thing as mermaids, no matter what you may see on the History channel.  Reality may be completely different from the world of Harry Potter, but Harry is enough to make children a little more curious than they should be.  I know: most of you will probably scoff at that and say that there is no such thing as too much curiosity.  But when you play with fire, you are likely to get burned.  If you don’t, you are either lucky or God is protecting you.  But if you do, you could be seriously hurt.

Again, I do like Harry Potter.  I do think that the books should be read, but perhaps before children read the books, they should be grounded enough in reality to know that the reality of witchcraft is dark and not everything needs to be experienced to know it is dangerous.  Furthermore, I think children will understand more if they read Harry Potter after they have matured a bit.  There is so much I would not have grasped if I had read them in middle school, when they were being released.  (I’m not sure I would have really wanted to read them then, however.  The people I knew that were really into Harry Potter were rather scary, and it is those people who might be in the sort of danger I mentioned above.) I simply think that parents should be aware of what their children are reading and – while not exactly censoring – should definitely monitor the content entering their heads.    

 

*You don’t really feel like this after reading The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, but I think it is similar to the situation the children find themselves in.  They step inside another story that becomes their own, and they age and mature within it.  But eventually, they have to return.  I think it is like that in most really great books.