How many of you think harry potter is childish?

I didn't write the book, but I suspect the seperation is there to protect both the magic folk and muggles. I think there's a difference between two people having different colored skin and two people having or not having the ability to launch a fireball with but a word and gesture.

I also suspect that, perhaps, in the past they were not seperated. This could have led to fear and reactionary thinking on one side, and desire for control over people less gifted on the other. This is likely the reason the Ministry of Magic was started to begin with. Perhaps not keeping them seperated was simply too dangerous?

I don't know. Like I said, I didn't write it and am not in any way an authority on Rowling's world.

 

Yes because humans have had such a nice history with dealing with Witches in the past. The way I see it, it would be difficult for two societies like this to exist. How would the world react to someone like say Voldemort who can kill anyone with a simple wand movement or could cause anyone intense pain. When the Muggles would have witness to this then there would most likely be a bunch of groups springing up who would be against the Wizarding World.

Then of course many people would expect solutions to problems that they just can't really solve using magic. Unless they actually were to understand the rules of magic it could cause more friction between the two groups. The Muggles would be outraged that they wont help them in some aspect, when in reality the Magic Users can't.

The seperation is to perserve both groups of people. Because soon the whole pure blood thing would most likely expand beyond the minority of them.

Well... that's how I always viewed the reason.

 

Rowling gives plenty of reasons for the separation, both noble and petty, throughout the series. You only need to read with that question in mind. You see it in the Dursleys, and in the pranks and cruelty of the Death Eaters, in the split between Salazar Slitherin and the other three founders of Hogwarts, the willing blindness of Muggles toward magical occurrences, etc. It's not a sinhle simple reason, but a total cultural divide that both sides are more comfortable with.

 

The first couple books are, yes. Especially the first one. But if you notice, the deeper the books get into the story, the more mature it gets. The tone of the first one is so completely different from the last. Remember that no characters died until the 4th book, then Rowling went on a killing spree.

Not to mention (AND THIS MAY BE A SPOILER FOR THE DEATHLY HALLOWS)

Spoiler

Hermione gets tortured in the 7th book. That's probably a tad too intense for little kids to read.

 

I thought it dragged on to much.

 

Oh wow I completely forgot about that bit in Deathly Hallows. Which is good for me because I am just about halfway through Half Blood Prince and starting Deathly Hallows/

But I agree with you. The first couple books were definitely more childrenish. But they quickly became more mature and I suppose darker.

Actually Querill died at the end of Sorcerers Stone. I remember because of the whole DADA thing. But I suppose you really don't see his death and more importantly he was the bad guy. lol

 

Because they are scared of non-magical humans. In Harry Potter, magical humans are a definite minority. If non-magical humans found out about magic, don't you think it would be a likely outcome that they aren't okay with it. I think this is why she included the Dursley family. They hate magic and magical people are freaks.

They separate themselves to protect themselves.

 

Hm, you're right. She does give a lot of reasons for the separation of magic-users and muggles.

 

I was one of those who thought the books would be childish but all it really takes to correct such horribly false image is to take a little bit better look into the universe of the books.

My first real touch with the universe was seeing the movie adaptation of Chamber of Secrets and though it didn't yet get me into the books, it got me interested in the universe in general for I saw it's not only about childLIKE fun but also fascinating darkness. (A gaint snake which wants to rip and kill, controlled by a ghost of a teenage version of the most feared psychopathic wizard of the time, in a secret chamber underneath a castle! Awesome!)

Then, as I studied the fandom, I found out about Sirius Black's story and the Marauders' fate and ran to get my hands on Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban and fell completely and hoplessly in love with the entire universe.

There is absolutely nothing childish about dark magic, attempts to murder a baby, cults, killing and tortuting people (into madness), Dementors and the way Azkaban prison was - yet even the lighter side of the universe and books I still find awful lot of fun and entertainment even in my late twenties.

So, anyone who falsely thinks they're childish, should be forced to take a better look into them. If anything, they're childlike but only partly on the surface. In the deepest they are very mature and dark and I would NOT read Order of the Phoenix, Half-Blood Prince or Deathly Hallows to very young kids. I'd give a serious consideration on that even with Prisoner of Azkaban and Goblet of Fire.

And even though the books have a lot of mentioned darkness in them, it doesn't glorify any of it, so all those religious fanatics are... hmm... better left unsaid.

 

I agree to this. I have found some stuff that is objectionably not for children. During my teen years I found little hints and references to sex and underage drinking in the books. I don't get the same childish feeling reading those as I do from old books like the Stinky Cheese Man and Chika Chika Boom Boom. The movies as I've seen felt kiddier than the books.

 

Gotta love Harry Potter. It might be a little childish (the first few books at least) but it got less childish as it went on, as other posters have suggested.

 

for godness sakes in Grimm's Cinderella story like someone mentioned there's blood and in a version of Little Riding Hood there's alcoholic in a picture. Besides kids were tread like mini versions of adults a long time ago-so if they could handle dark stuff back then, they still can today (I mean think of those war video games kids play now adays? aren't those even darker than Harry Potter. I mean the Little Mermaid dies in the original story-and so did half-a million other characters in Hans Christan Anderston's stories. I don't think Harry Potter Childish but I known the series since I was was Ginny's age in the first HP book.

 

I think that as a series of books Harry Potter not only was able to target one specific audience of which would have a special hold on but it also provided great entertainment for those older people also.

Provided we see past the writing skill of Rowling for a moment consider the knowledge, fantasy, relationships between young and old these books added to. Parents bonding with their children, adolescents opening their mind to not only new fantasies and experiences but a new way of reading fiction. A semi-realistic fantasy.

If you were the same age as Harry was (as I was) when the books began being released then you'll understand me when I say, Harry Potter changed not only how I read but how I felt about growing up.

Today as I look at it slightly more critically and academically the themes, motifs and portrayals of characters are inspired. I'm not a great fan of the movies nor am I a buff who can tell you everything about each characters middle name but I do know that the Harry Potter series are a set of books that any person could read and become seriously involved with not just on some outer level.

It's understandable for people to shrug it off as childish and this is somewhat of a rant (for which I do apologise).

Sometimes I guess you just need to read that magic might exist.

 

I haven't the vaguest appreciation or interest in Harry Potter and have only read one book and seen a couple movies, so I'm not really qualified to form an opinion about the content of the series.

However, I can say that as a general rule, if something is aimed for a broad/family audience, it's written off as being childish (and unfairly so). I can't imagine how difficult it would be to write a film/story that entertains and engages a younger audience, while still providing enough content for the older demographic without pandering and leaning one way or another. That's a tricky balancing act that can leave both halves dissatisfied if not done well.

Harry Potters popularity and success as both a critic and audience pleaser is testament enough to this.

I would suspect that Twilight's run away success came about mostly from an open vacuum that Harry Potter left open when JK Rowling finished her series. But that's for another thread entirely.

 

I think one of the more interesting themes in this thread is our idea of what should be in children's literature. I submit that enforced innocence is an adult fantasy that has little to do with the horror that many, maybe most, endure growing up.

Harry Potter is an abused child. The most unrealistic element of the books is that he is written as a well-adjusted person. (I attributed it to the magical protection of his parents' love.) Children in the books seem to be a pretty average cross-section of real kids dealing with realistic and appropriate childhood issues in a somewhat fantastic setting. Interestingly, magic doesn't help them solve those problems.

People used to teach this prayer to their children when I was growing up:

Now I lay me down to sleep,
I pray the Lord my soul to keep.
If I should die before I wake,
I pray the Lord my soul to take.

Childhood is dark by definition.

 

I know that prayer from Little House on the Prairie. Harry's being abused is not the only issue in the story the racism of half-bloods, half-breads and muggleborns by the other so called "Pure-blood" families. Ron's being overshadow by his 3 out of 5 older brothers.

Some people think that when Harry and his friends go "throw the trap door", into the Chamber of Secrets is representative of going to the 3 letter world that begins with H.

There are a lot of other themes in Harry Potter but I can't remember them

 

I think the first couple Harry Potter books are somewhat childish, but as the characters grow up they get steadily more complex and dark. It's an excellent example of character growth and progression.

 

hoe? hat? hip? hop? hit? ham? hog?

 

Think Luis Malfoy's name Lucis is short for Lucifer which is a name of the D-E-V-I-L. so chamber of secrets/the chambers under the trapdoor is representative of the underworld or "H-E-L-L"

 

Bit of a stretch, that.

Lucius is not short for Lucifer, but I believe they do come from the same latin word lux, which means light.

 

They can do although the one Lucius in the Bible was a Christian and it was a Saint's name. Thought Lucifer actually meant son of light or star of the morning. (EDIT apparently it means bringer of light so Lucius is only as related as the name Lucy or Lucian).

Malfoy however probably means Bad Faith. Some people were determined to find the devil in Harry Potter.

However I do not find the idea of a young child being possessed by an evil spirit paritcularly childish reading. Which was in the same book.

 

Your post above says "3 letter world". I just counted the letters in H-E-L-L and I discovered that there are four of them. One of them is repeated, but it still counts.

Just sayin'.

 

Lucifer also means Light Bearer and is a name for the Morning Star which is Venus.

Also if you are going to suggest something like this, get the name right. Its Lucius Malfoy. Lucius is a common name during the Romans. In fact there are a crap load of them. According to a few places Lucius also means Light.

 

Regardless of the meaning of the name, Cornflower is suggesting only what many others have, since the Christian symbolism on the HP series is so prevalent. Harry as Christ figure dies and returns with stunning frequency through the series. The Chamber of Secrets, to some, is less Hell than entry to afterlife where we all must face our own weaknesses and sins in order to move along. It was another symbolic death and resurrection.

Whether one agrees with this or not, or cares, it's a very common theme discussed by Potterphiles.

 

Quick question. Now I have read the series a few times and I honestly can't remember a single instance where Harry has actually died. I can't even remember a resurrection. As for metaphoric deaths... I guess the Chamber of Secrets and the scene in Deathly Hollows counts. But I would have to say I would need JK Rowlings input on this and whether or not she intended this to be a metaphor or not.

I say that because... sometimes people like to see things that are not actually there. They connect one thing with another and suddenly it has a deeper meaning. I mean I once described my character getting ready for an upcoming storm. This line also came after a breakup scene.

The storm was in fact... just that. A snow storm. When I read it again, I realized it could be a metaphore for the time period after being broken up with. It was quite literally an accident of writing.

Sometimes a storm is just a storm.