Harry potter 7 theory.

Oy. Maybe she does. I mean, people can be quite different in their way of thinking.

If she does,which I don't admit for a moment,why hasn't she reported all the young lads she has known to the authorities as an accident waiting to happen.

Maybe though she thinks she can straighten them out herself by having sweet little Harry set an example which certain types of parents approve of.
Most kids can't afford books so the parents are the "end users" really.At the checkout I mean.That's neat.A process to change little lads,and little girls expectations of little lads,in a direction that meets parental guidance so they all become goodie-goodies and as such ideal for surrendering our economic future to the up-coming nations of the world.

I'll allow I might be oversimplifying and Harry is more subversive than I think but the stampeed of the parents is mighty suspicious.

Read Rider Haggard lads.

Theres been some parents have refused to let there kids even read harry potter

nick-

"Some parents" doesn't sound much in the path of a steamroller.

How old is Harry now?

17 i think, why?

Well-I was just wondering really.One should wonder a bit about mass enthusiasm especially when it is related to class or a perception of class.

At 17 then Harry is on the cusp of finding young ladies irresistable. JK is probably engaged in an excercise to teach young ladies how to take maximum advantage of this facet of their nature.Or JK's version of it at least.But she has created her own little 17 year old lad.A doll one might say.A doll gone beyond the stage of being laid in a pram and cosseted.

Now there is an ambiguity in this.Could it be that JK is giving the little lads an idea of how to avoid this terrible fate,by teaching them to never do anything Harry does.That they read it inside out.That Harry is a complete sap.If she is doing that,which is easy to do,she has to take her little hero into "last rasping gasp of the mantis's groom" mode at some point.Sudden and soon would be merciful judging from some of the blokes I meet in the pub.

But I'm only speculating from the tit-bits I've gleaned from the News and on here.It comes from the wondering I mentioned earler.

Does Harry play any sports?Any team games?

Is Harry anything like Denis The Menace or Popeye?

Quiddich, duh

Yeah well-there you go.

So umm... what are we talking about again?

Okay, so someone mentioned something about a secret affair, and then something about dolls, and then, quiddich...

What is going on?

Ray-

We were discussing the possible social effects of the mass enthusiasm of certain types of parents for Harry Potter being shoved in their children's faces.

A little like one often hears similar discussions about the social effects of other mass enthusiasms such as Elvis Presley or Dan Dare.

Is it permitted?

Alright then.

Ray-

Well then?

Have you no views about a middle-aged multi-millionairess describing the inner workings of a lad of 16 in such a way as not to present to her consciousness any difficulties and can thus be seen as a sort of playdough which,of course,is attractive to those who don't wish to face up to football hooligans and binge drinking holiday makers on the Costa-del-sunshine during "Grab a Shop Worker" week.

Spendy, you may like to stop this nonsense.

Harry potter isnt exactly the deep-and-meaningfull sort of novel you seem to think it is.
Jk can know as much as she chooses to about a 16 year old lad because the children wont notice if it doesnt directly relate to their ideals about adolesence.

Queenie wrote,a trifle snootily I thought,-



What's the point then?Although I think it will have significant meanings.



Come,come my girl-they do notice.I think your two statements come too close to underestimating the little monsters.

Someone earlier mentioned parents who won't have Harry Potter anywhere near their children.What reason could they have or are you going to say that their arguments are "nonsense" as well.

Maybe she was trying to earn quick bucks, or maybe she was trying to tell a story that she would think appeal to her audience. One of the reasons that kids like the book, is perhaps that they can somehow relate to the characters. Their traits are nothing new in mainstream culture either.

Your question is how does a middle-aged woman write about the emotions held by a young lad. Well, read the book and tell me what you find out. I've read it, and the characters seem fine to me, but that may be because I was only reading it for fun. Not many people seem to complain that she is writing about a male protagonist.

Maybe we should discuss whether a person can write about the emotional life of another person who is very different from the writer.



I don't know about those parents, they may have their religious issues, or some issues concerning the behaviours of the kids. The thing that I find annoying in the book, is how it seems that the kids are always "breaking the rules." It is also ridiculous to see how something good always happen from this act. However, I realize that perhaps she is merely saying that certain conventional rules must be broken if it stood in the way of saving someone, but the fact that they are breaking the rules many times when it is not required is plainly viceful, and this is maybe what some parents are concerned about. You would probably like to know that there is some sort of anger issue with Potter... but characters and flaws appear in stories a lot.

Yeah the parents have religious issues. As does the new pope. Did you see in the paper a while back him issuing the statement 'Harry Potter eats the souls of children'
What crap. Harry potter inspires them and feeds their imaginations, I would rather think that all the catholic dogma eats their souls, not harry potter.

I was about 10 when i first read harry potter 1, so I assure you spendy, children DO NOT find anything deep and meaningfull in the harry potter books, just an enthralling story line.

Queenie-

Now you have quoted the Pope saying that I feel myself on very firm ground.The Pope doesn't make pronouncements off the cuff.Committees are involved composed of experts to find those sorts of conclusions.

What Ray has said suggests there is an undertone of amorality in the books which is fair enough for those who welcome an amoral generation coming through.My guess is that the rules broken are not much more than mischief.Any affairs with the English teacher?Any masturbation?Any spitting green gollies at girls?Any dope smoking or dealing?Any visits to internet porn sites?Any fart lighting?Any car stealing?Any stealing his Dad's fag(if he has a Dad) and booze?Those are the sorts of things lads between about 14 and 17 regularly do according to reliable sources.A few quite a bit worse.Any hacking into the CIA's computer?

I might add that "crap" is not the way to describe Popes.You will never be taken seriously by intelligent people if you do that.He is the spiritual leader of over a billion people and our News media's reaction to his activities suggest they take him seriously even when they disagree with his doctrines.Every News organisation in the world of any consequence was represented in Rome for the period of change which took place last year.And Sky News had their top man in place.

I can still be intellectual and say that its crap that the pope thinks that. Just because its too long winded to give a deep and philosophical reason why. I dont generally get on with catholics.

Ok, maybe young men do do that. But it isnt really the stuff of childrens books is it? anyway who cares. harry potter rocks. which is why we should get back to discussing what is going to happen in book 7.

It seems to me that she has to kill him.I can't see how she is going to run his 18th year to the satisfaction of the sort of parents who use her books to brainwhack their kids and not look ridiculous.

Where exactly is he up to as things stand now at 17.Is he a late developer.Is he a sissy?

I think we would all welcome a "deep and philosophical" explanation from such an profound source.I cerainly would.