I've not read any of the books, nor have I seen any of the movies, but I am obviously aware of the enormous success this story has enjoyed.

I am also aware of the growing opposition to and condemnation of the story by, for example, the Catholic church.

Easy for me to say sitting on the sidelines, but my view is that seeing a child or adolescent reading a book is a wonderful sight (as long as it's not the Kama Sutra or the Story of O). Hopefully reading Harry Potter will be the beginning of a young person's interest in and desire for literature.

The other side feels that the Harry Potter saga glorifies witchcraft and is anti-religion and is particularly dangerous because it targets young minds.

The pro-Potter faction admits to the witchcraft, but states that it is Harry's recognition of and triumph over evil that makes the story so relevant.

Can somebody straighten me out?

Post deleted by Flynn

I wonder, then, why you are not such a success as a writer as Ms Rowlings... you seem to know an awful lot about what children like to read, why don't you have a go?

As a parent, who has read two of the books, and as someone who was raised as a Catholic, and has a certain amount of respect for the Catholic Church, I have to say that I just don't get the objections.

The only thing that is new about Harry Potter is the enormous success. Children have been reading 'school' stories, and 'magic' stories, for a long long time. Even 'school of magic' is nothing new - "Worst Witch" comes to mind, but I know I read others as a child. I also know that, as a child, I had a very well developed sense of what was fantasy and what was real. Church, in my highly regimented Catholic girlhood, was as real as porridge and snow - books were something else. Did I base life decisions on things I read in books? Yes, I guess so, and the kind of books I read, like Harry Potter, came down hard on the side of doing what was right.

The only thing I can see in the Harry Potter books which I could consider inimical to established religion is the emphasis on deciding for yourself what is right or wrong, rather than going to authority for the answers. But, that has been a major theme in literature for at least three hundred years. If the Catholic Church is going to get excited about that at this late date, JK Rowling is not the enemy - they need to go have a talk with Martin Luther.

A leading Catholic thinker (who has been endorsed by the current Pope) has compared the Harry Potter books to ones where good drug dealers battle bad drug dealers and win - the fact that good triumphs over bad is not as important as the fact that both sides are inherently evil. I'm sorry, I think that that is hogwash. Drug dealers are real - a child today will quite possibly have a choice whether or not to choose that as a career path. Wizards are not - children will not be deciding any time soon "Gee, should I take Accounting or Defense Against the Dark Arts?"

Some of those arguing that magic is inherently bad (because it interferes with nature, and with God's plan) ignore the fact that if magic were to work in our world, it would have been put there by God. Nothing that exists in this world is evil - the evil comes from the uses that humans choose to put it to. We were given free will - Harry Potter gives one example of what we can do with it.

Anyway, as a parent, I do not believe that it is the job of popular literature to teach values to my children. I would prefer that it not seriously undermine the values I teach at home, but if it does, I can deal with it. I have to live with Gangsta music and "Gossip Girl" novels, I can handle Harry Potter.

That said, I don't personally think the books are all that good. Much too long, much too 'schooly'. I would have read and liked them as a child, but they would not have been favorites. Although there is a lot of magic in the books, there is very little sense of wonder.

Post deleted by Flynn

When the Harry Potter books first came out in Australia, there was quite a bit of controversy. Some religious schools banned them on the grounds that they "promoted" witchcraft and evil. My husband (Maynooth) and I read them to check that our young daughter wasn't reading anything inappropriate.

We enjoyed them and we can see why the kids enjoy them. Many children dislike reading and the average child has an attention span of just a few minutes. Yet, most kids will happily wade through the 600-odd pages of the books. They can't put the books down. Harry Potter books have stimulated many children to read, where previously they had no interest in reading. So JK Rowling must be doing something right.

I am sure if I was a kid, I'd be obsessed with the HP books too! (In my day, we were all crazy about the "Anne of Green Gables" series and I still have my set). We may not have had all the media hype but we were still just as obsessed.

Maynooth has a theory that one of the reasons kids love Harry Potter is because of the control issues. In the beginning, Harry has no control over his life. He is an orphan, completely at the mercy of his aunt, uncle and cousin who abuse him shamefully. Then he discovers he is a wizard. Suddenly, he finds he has powers and gains some small measure of control over his life. His aunt and uncle can't stop him going to Hogwarts, even though they want to. The children reading this are at an age where they can relate to this – they are largely under the control of their parents and teachers and feel as powerless as Harry does at first. They get a vicarious thrill out of seeing Harry assume the power they themselves don't have.

I've discussed these books with my daughter and some of our friends' youngsters and the kids have made it quite clear that, while they love the books, they are not confusing fantasy with reality. They enjoy seeing good triumph over evil, they enjoy seeing Harry's mean-spirited cousin get his comeuppance, they relate to Harry's perceived persecution by a hated teacher, they think how neat it would be to possess an invisibility cloak, they love to hate the school bully (now there's a situation many kids can relate to). What normal child wouldn't fantasize about becoming a witch or a wizard? Admit it, when you watched "Bewitched" as a kid, didn't you think it would be great to be Samantha? (But you knew it it was just a fantasy and it would never happen).

My child has learned a lot of Latin and mythology as we have discussed the way J.K. Rowling has used them to name her characters, and we've discussed some of the devices the author used, such as anagrams and spelling words backwards. There is actually quite a lot of trivia to be learned from them.

"Re: Harry Potter - Expands Or Pollutes Young Minds". I'd vote for expands.

Well by my signature - I would say it cetainly expands young (and older ) minds. For me it is escapism....and everybody needs that sometimes

Anything that encourages children to read is a good thing, in my opinion, regardless of whether you personally enjoy the books. Anyone who gets all worked up about the content of the books seems to be missing the point - they are fantasy books. I can't see how reading anything about magic or witchcraft can corrupt children. In fact, good triumphing over evil, friendship and love seem quite moral issues for children to read about. The setting for the books may be a magical and fantastic environment, but the themes at the heart of the books are not evil or corrupting in any way.

Quote:

---

No, I know what I think children SHOULD read

---

You know and I know that what they SHOULD read , they never do. I could give you a huge list of books they shouldn't read, but do, and should read, and don't. They read Harry Potter, and it could be worse.To me , they are a darned good read, as , I suppose, people thought Enid Blyton was. I don't think it is possible to dictate to children about reading matter. I was forbidden Blyton, and went to the library secretly. I was forbidden comics, and went to read them in the doctor's waiting room.They will get round it somehow, and after all they are reading something. Adults read all sorts of stuff they shouldn't read...don't they?

Round of applause for, Jane! Well, said.

I don't think we're giving kids enough credit - let them read if they want to. Parents and schools spend half of the time trying to get them to read and then all of a sudden they're told they can't read a certain book? Not the right message.

I was thinking about a reply to this during the day today, but agony and Jane have summed up my thoughts pretty well! I had heard all the controversies over the past years, and decided this past winter to read the series for myself.
The books are clearly fantasy, just like fairy tales or stories about superheroes. The struggle of good vs. evil is an age old one, and to me, this is just another example of it.
I don't necessarily believe that anything that encourages children to read is a good thing, because there are definitely books that I would not let my children read, but the Harry Potter series isn't included. I don't understand parents who allow their children to watch R-rated movies and play graphic video games but have a problem with Harry Potter.

My main issue with the whole "promotes witchcraft" line of thinking is quite simple, the "witchcraft" in Potter books is not real. Speaking as a witch, I can tell you in all certainty that we can't turn rats into wine glasses nor can we fly around on brooms. The witchcraft in the books is fantasy witchcraft. It's what people who wish they had magic powers want to do. None of us who follow the path of real witchcraft believe we possess such powers. Ok, maybe a few crackpots here and there do, but us sane folks know better.

It's no better or worse than the witch in The Wizard of Oz with her clan of flying monkeys and sleeping poppies. It's just fantasy. Kids need a certain level of fantasy play, it's part of their development. With or without Potter, kids will make up their own adventure world where they can fly and do extraordinary things.

My daughter hates the Potter books, my husband loves them. I read them because they are entertaining. If I want a dose of heavy fiction, I'll read Bronte. I'd rather have my daughter reading than sitting in front of a video game. As long as she's not reading something that is not appropriate for her maturity level, I don't mind. She won't be reading most of my books until she's older, but if she wants a good dose of fantasy, she can have Rowling or Pratchett. I'd be happy with either choice.

I've been around some families who really object to Harry Potter on a religious basis here in the States, yet, they are very much opposed to many things in the curriculum and in fact, tend to be homeschoolers. They typically use a Christian school curriculum that uses images from the Bible throughout and does not use anything that refers to evolution, depending upon their particular sway.
Harry Potter for them would be way out of their spectrum of approved reading material. Many of the people I've met would find normal curriculum objectionable, therefore, Harry Potter would have lots of things in it that would be very objectionable. Just talking to snakes is one thing that pops up.

The attraction: At first I didn't understand quite why kids were going so ape over them as I personally hate being pushed into something. I loved science fiction and fantasy as a child, and still read it avidly whenever anyone new comes out, (check out Hayden's work if you like fantasy) yet, I don't read Terry Pratchett because I read a few and then didn't get as enthused as everyone else did. I understand why people like some series and don't like others. I suppose the more someone says I just have to read X, the less I want to read it! I'm more like a teenager in my tastes than you'd think.
I also refused to reread the Tolkein books before the film came out. I read them and knew them well, and wrote music to the songs as a kid, so didn't feel compelled to reread them. I enjoyed the films of course, but, didn't feel like reading the book.

But Harry Potter, it was my daughter who finally got me to read it as she'd never ever insisted I read the same thing she did nor had she ever really gotten that insistent about a book. She even left it out for me and asked me if I hadn't read it yet. I finally spent an entire weekend reading the three volumes, then read the other ones.
I enjoyed the films too and find that they've been very faithful to the books without being slavish and the distance between my mind's eye and the actors' portayal on the screen is very close. I think the actors are really wonderful in the film series.

Now, as to other families who have looked at this question in different way. My nephew is five and his sister is eight and a half. The former is an avid reader and I mean, everything under the sun. She writes stories and if this keeps up, she may become a writer. I only wish my kids had kept up this habit, but maybe it will return some day. They may have been fed up with the French system of teaching so that, they lost their taste for reading.
So, the cousins are allowed to listen to the tape, to read the book, to have it read to them, but only the elder can watch the entire films. The younger one isn't allowed as it gives him nightmares.
He accepts this constraint willingly but whines about it occasionally. As you might imagine a five-year old boy who loves superheroes and knights and pirates cannot resist.
Is it because of witchcraft? No, just strong dark images that leave an impression in a young kid's mind. I admit that some of those fight scenes make the hair on my neck stand on end. When I watch the films again, I always say, 'darn, I can see why the folks are saying this is Satan, that bit where Harry speaks to the snake...pretty scary'

I doubt that people do allow the R rated movies and graphic video games yet nix Harry Potter quite frankly. I'm willing to wager that if they're that concerned about that aspect of HP, then, they'd be the types to object to Grand theft auto and Stephen Seigal.

Some people's objection was that though there was the fight against good and evil, there was no mention whatsoever of God or Christ helping the children to overcome these obstacles. I think lots of us would say, 'And that's a bad thing?'
I mean that many of us would find that a child finding the inner strength to overcome obstacles, to rely on his friends through thick and thin, is a good thing. I also have heard that they find that Harry disobeys authority. I'm sorry but I greet that with uproarious laughter. Of course he disobeys, he's a teenager!
By the way, I agree with Maynooth on the orphan scenario being appealing to kids. How many of us wouldn't have entertained the idea of not being related to our parents when they were being their most embarrassing? If I hadn't been the spitting image of my own mother, I'd have thought I was adopted. Throughout literature and legends orphans play a big role. What's the boy supposed to do, obey his aunt and uncle?

As to the quality question, I keep thinking if people really think it's drivel, we're waiting to see what they dream up. I personally find it a very good enjoyable read and try not to go too fast. Do the people who level these criticisms actually read other children's books around?
I personally find the reality type books without any fantasy dreadfully boring and I perfectly understand kids being totally put off by them. I find the richness of the vocabulary and the British school setting appealing to kids around the world a marvelous thing. I found a handful of words I'd never seen in my life the last time I read it.
Are we complaining about a book that incites kids to read more than a preset five hundred word vocabulary about 'Mommy and Daddy get divorced but still love me.' ?
If I were a kid, I'd jump off a cliff before I read that sort of book!
If the whole thing were just a matter of media hype, it wouldn't have worked this well. It is an enjoyable read, but not for anyone who doesn't enjoy fantasy. If you're not in that space, then you won't get into it.


Ok ok, I'm waiting to go get the Prince one at the local bookstore as I know I'll burrow my nose in it and won't come out till I'm done.

I've told the story before, but we once stayed in the guesthouse where J.K. Rowlings' mother stayed regularly on the border of Wales and England. The innkeeper told us that the lady used to worry so much about her daughter ever finding her way in life. She mentioned that her daughter had written some sort of fairytales and hoped they'd worked.
Then they took off.
More power to her. I'd let my kids read Harry Potter in a heartbeat and I do.

First of all, anyone who knows me knows that I don't get Harry Potter at all. But that's just my personal taste in reading - it certainly doesn't mean these books are "bad" in any which way. I remember seeing the blatant pleasure that people, young and older, got from the series as it went And I thought I'd get my niece started on them (I think she was 13 at the time). Her Mother was quite opposed to the idea! "We don't let our daughter read trash like that." Well, being the rule breaker that I am, I got the little girl the books, anyway. Guess what happened? My sister-in-law [wisely] checked the first novel out before she let the kid read it. Now they are both starving to see the next one. That's the beauty of books, I think. Everything is so 'visual' now. I'm sure it's great fun but the written word can spark the imagination so much more vastly than watching "Spiderman" scale a building. I think both genres are worth their salt but I go with reading as a jump start to real full throttle thought. I think I started reading at about 4 or 5 (I was one of those little eggheads) but I don't think what I read back then had any huge influence on me personally in terms of how I thought the world worked. But reading made me curious and opened so many doors of experience.

As for condemnation of the books? Bunk, I say. The ones who condemn them are the same who were likely glued to the TV every year when "The Wizard Of Oz" aired. We had a witch or two there. A very peevish neighbor. An orphan. Even a mean monkey or two flying around (not to mention some very irked apple trees). Was it all about witchcraft? Some sort of disrespect for apes? Some entire disregard for fruit trees? Nah. It was all about fantasy and fun. Personally I applaud Rowlings. I don't imagine that she knows what she really has done. She got a new generation reading again. And I think that is not only great, but strongly important

Sorry. Long post there.

This is basically turning out be more of a question of why Harry Potter is such a sensation. The storm wouldn't have taken off, had it not been for its phenonmenol success and universal appeal. Let us please grow up, JKR is not forcing anyone to read them. She is telling whatever she feels like, it's completely upto the reader whether to read them or not.

As an avid reader and - one who thinks he wouldn't do anything stupid seeing Spiderman hanging on the wall on TV - I am pretty confident that I don't read them because it has anything to do with the witchcraft, which is considered evil(omigod...I really said it ;-) ). I read it because JKR has a splendid style of narrating even the commonest of things. What we call witchcraft, it has just added another mysterious element which is obviously highly lucrative.

But, let me think for a while, if there were no magic in the Harry Potter books! There would be some secret, yet unmagical school which has a powerful headmaster, and there is this evil called Voldemort who's killing people using explosives. There comes the question, would the teenager protagonist like Potter make sense there? Apparently, yes. Harry may be shown to possess some secrets about the enemy, and ah, he is ever so vividly angry with him. So what if Potter fights the Evil without taking the name of God? Come on now, it is fantasy still, magical or not. There is absolutely nothing wrong in it. Even if there's absolutely nothing happening at Hogwarts, I still enjoy the part too much - just because it is so close to a 17yo like me.

I ain't developing no hate or love for any community or ideology because of this book; at the end of the day...it's just an entertainer.

Hmm. Well, as for one objection in particular, some kids aren't 10 yet, and some 10 year olds, frankly, don't have such an advanced ability as some people seem to think. If a book is of an appropriate reading level, regardless of how old someone is, then why on earth would there be an objection. What if a 6 year old read them? Would they be too puerile then? And anyway, what's wrong with being puerile once in a while?

I can be a book snob sometimes, but I try not to be. I read Tolkien the first time around when I was 7. I didn't read the first Harry Potter book until just last month, and it took me 4 hours. Would I say that difficulty-wise Harry Potter is somewhat below me? Of course. It was below my level when I was the age it is meant for. Who cares? Not everyone is like me, first of all, and second of all, what the heck is wrong with reading something "beneath you" every once in a while? If the subject matter is of interest, who cares how easy it is to read?

Harry Potter is the type of book I'd read to my daughter. I've mentioned this before, but young adult books, like Charlotte's Web, A Wrinkle in Time, and the like, are things I enjoy reading to her. Picture books are good for us to read together, but if I'm going to read to her at night, I choose a book that's intended for a young person, so the language is not too high for her, but is interesting enough to me that I enjoy reading it too. And there's nothing wrong, I think, with me enjoying it. Charlotte's Web is probably puerile...

In any case, I agree with those who've said that a child with a book should be encouraged not discouraged. I don't agree with a book-banning mentality. It's only one step and two letters away from a book-burning mentality. I'm of the general opinion that the act of reading itself expands minds, young and old, and the subject matter is of little consequence where that is concerned. But when judging subject matter, with the exception of certain subjects I don't think are suitable for people under, say, 14 yrs old, arbitrarily, like drugs and sex, (and even those if handled in a mature way and meant as a sort of "public service announcement" like so many of the books I read in junior high,) whatever a person enjoys is what they should read about, and encouraging imagination, like by reading about things that don't exist, which are fanciful, which promote wonder, oh, like magic for instance, should be high on most peoples' lists.

I don't like the Catholic Church for reasons much like this one, and I won't hide it. Personally, I think in matters such as this, the Catholic Church is puerile in a much more negative way than anything in Harry Potter.

I am the type of person who believes everyone has a right to their own opinion, you can tell me yours, I may mull it over, but I do not have to change my thinking to fit it, I don't expect anyone to give me anymore than that back.

I believe the books are an asset to the reading world.

What I think is funny are those who say that magic is evil, something can only be evil if it exsists, the kind of magic in Harry Potter does not, even my son who I have read the books to knows that. He is six (going on seven) and knows the diference between fantasy and reality, why, because I taught him.

Harry Potter books are a blessing in my home bacause they got my son interested in reading. He cannot wait until I read a chapter to him. My son is a very smart boy, but he has problems keeping his mind on things, it wanders ALOT, I was never able to keep him interested in the books I read to him, even the short ones. In first grade it was a struggle just to get him to read the little four page, less than 100 word books that were his homework, now he wants to read, he and I take turns reading scentences. Now, I'm sure if it hadn't been Harry Potter it would have been something else, but the thing that excites me is that I like the books as much as he does, I have no problem reading chapters a couple of times for him.

As for the material being to old for some, one day in my seventh grade English calss during reading time my teacher came up to me appalled by what I was reading. It was Danielle Steele. My mother gave it to me to read, she knew that I was bored with the books aimed at my age group and wanted to encourage me to read, she was not afraid that it might make me do things I wasn't supposed to because she taught me better than that.

Oh my gosh... I'm literally running to get to work, but I can't pass up the opportunity to comment on this subject. :P I share a position closely with Bruyere, I think. I never "got" all the Potter hype when the books first became a sensation over here five, maybe six years ago. I hated the idea of liking something "just because" it was popular, so I didn't give it a chance. Then I was bored one weekend with nothing to do so I borrowed Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone from a friend... I was addicted by chapter three.

I think mostly I was put off of the books by the fact that they were written for children (with the possible exception of Half-Blood Prince); I really didn't see how it would have any adult appeal. But I found with the Harry Potter books, much like with one of my favourite TV shows, The Simpsons, the stories are written on multiple levels and, while the story is exciting and complete on the level a child could understand, you really need to read the series as an adult to get full enjoyment out of what Joanne Rowling has written.

As a small example of what I mean (keeping in mind that I'm on my way to work and have no time to go looking for a better example. Anyway, for example: in Prisoner of Azkaban we are introduced to James' old school chum-turned-professor, Remus Lupin. At the end of book three we discover what is unusual about this character, but the adult reader who is familiar with both Latin and the myth of Romulus and Remus gets a little thrill of foreknowledge long before the child is pleased by the same fact.

Yadda, yadda, yadda. I love Harry Potter! I love the books so much that I got two compendiums: A Muggle's Guide to the Wizarding World: Exploring the Harry Potter Universe and Harry Potter and Philosophy: If Aristotle Ran Hogwarts. The former is mostly a companion for books one through five; the latter is what I specifically wanted to share in this forum. It's a great little book about the philosophical issues that arise in Rowling's work. I don't have time to go into detail in this post (maybe in a subsequent posting) but I'll put the subject/chapter headings here and maybe they'll spark more discussion on the expansion/pollution of young minds topic. :P


Part 1: Gryffindor: The Characters of Harry's World
i. The Courageous Harry Potter
ii. Dursley Duplicity: The Morality and Psychology of Self-Deception
iii. Voldemort's Agents, Malfoy's Cronies, and Hagrid's Chums: Friendship in Harry Potter
iv. Feminism and Equal Opportunity: Hermione and the Women of Hogwarts

Part 2: Hufflepuff: Morality in Rowling's Universe
v. Heaven, Hell and Harry Potter
vi. Magic, Science, and the Ethics of Technology
vii. The Mirror of Erised: Why We Should Heed Dumbledore's Warning
viii. Kreacher's Lament: S.P.E.W. as a Parable on Discrimination, Indifference, and Social Justice

Part 3: Slytherin: Knockturn Alley and the Dark Arts
ix. Is Ambition a Virtue? Why Slytherin Belongs at Hogwarts
x. A Skewed Reflection: The Nature of Evil
xi. Voldemort, Boethius, and the Destructive Effects of Evil
xii. Magic, Muggles, and Moral Imagination

Part 4: Ravenclaw: Many-Flavoured Topics in Metaphysics
xiii. Finding Platform 9 ¾: The Idea of a Different Reality
xiv. Space, Time and Magic
xv. Why Voldemort Won't Just Die Already: What Wizards Can Teach Us about Personal Identity
xvi. The Prophecy-Driven Life: Foreknowledge and Freedom at Hogwarts.

OK, now I'm kinda late. Good discussion, everybody!

I have now read the new one and enjoyed it but was marveling on how it really didn't seem to be written for a child and how one would have to be obsessed with Harry Pottermania and details to actually follow the first chapter. My niece has purchased hers and is joyfully ploughing through it (she'll be nine in a month).

Maybe what LadyC said is true in that if you're an adult, you'll get the jokes and references to other languages and pompous academics etc in the story, but a kid gets something out of it too. It's just astounding that both would be interested in it.
One thing that I do like is the pacing of the books. I think people, younger people in particular enjoy the pacing because they start up at the time of the year when summer holidays are waning and Harry does not have enjoyable ones with his aunt and uncle, then there is always an event, and he has his birthday. It is cyclical. Cynics might say this is because of money issues, but I don't think so.

The birthday each year marks a change in Harry's life and the transition from home to school where his true vocation lies. I think children respond to this cycle each year as it resembles their own.(or a large majority of the kids reading it). Then they can always project themselves into Harry's life with his dismally poor parent substitutes. Nothing like an orphan tale to get pre adolescents' imaginations going. "What IF I were actually adopted and didn't have to claim these embarrassing people as my parents?"
The book's pacing echoes the kid's school year.

It's like in France when Beaujolais nouveau comes out, sure it's a media hyped event, but the wine's good and needs to be tasted, so what if it's a publicity event?

The last book is darker however, than any of the previous volumes.


The Simpsons probably is a good example and I'd even up the ante and add Cheers or Frasier as they both have multiple levels of humor which might be a key to their success as comedies. Harry Potter definitely has this aspect. I wondered if JK had actually worked in an administrative position as she writes about it well! Surely that aspect cannot be aimed at the kids reading the book, but the grownups.


Oh I just noticed a mention of Charlotte's Web. When I was at my grandmother's house many long years ago, she'd taken me to the library and I must have been about seven or eight. They required an adult to check out that book because, pssssst, someone dies in it. Harry Potter is way beyond that in terms of imagery.

I've just finished the sixth book for the sixth time, , and I must say, I enjoyed it. I'm 15, and like to consider myself a reader of serious fiction, (dysutopias and classics mostly), but at the same time, I do enjoy the Harry Potter books as light fiction. I am actually quite obsessed with them, though my level of interest seems to peak and fall as the release dates come nearer.

There really is no question about it, in my opinion, any book which has had such an enormous influence of the reading habits of the world has to be a good thing. I won't pretend that the Harry Potter books introduced me to the world of reading, they certainly didn't, (I can't remember a time when I didn't read), but they have made the youth all over the world look at reading, and books from a completely different point of view.

As for the expands/pollutes question, I actually find it quite hilarious that these books could actually be considered harmful. They're as harmless as any other fantasy series. It's just that due to their extreme success, they have come in for a lot more criticism than most other fantasy books.

This post's too long already, so I think I'll stop now, though I really could go on and on...

Addition below

The first line of the blurb for this very forum says it all. Sorry, just had to add that.

Q. Hey, what are The-Muggles-Who-Love-Wizards doing?
A. They are posting long long posts. No, No. Not those owly posts, but the posts on something called combuder, on something called Funtrivia.

Q. And what are they doing...they who hate magic, hate Harry Potter?
A. Ya! Lemme think. They?! Er...they are also posting long long posts, ya!

Q. They? What? Why?
A. Because, some who hate magic, actually love magic but don't want to show it, ya; some others who hate Harry Potter actually haven't read it but want to show that they've read it and did not like it, ya, ya; and yet others who hate it really hate it but do not know why they hate it, ya.

Q.
A.

There is absolutely no rational reason to believe that HP can possibly affect young readers in negative fashions. Throughout the series, Harry is obviously portrayed as good and opposing evil. Rowling shows magic as a skill or inherent tool, which some people are able to use better than others, and some not at all. This makes it no different from any other skill or talent people have. A good comparison is martial arts. Some people are able to learn much more quickly than others, and some may never learn at all. During training and upon completion (be it gaining black belt or whatever the equivalent is in any other martial art), the students are capable of using their skill in many ways. Some are good, productive uses, like training others or entertaining viewers, yet others are bad, inappropriate uses, like assaulting people. By looking at these different uses for martial arts, most people would believe that it is simply something that can be used for good or bad, but is in itself neither. The same is true with magic in HP. Some fantasy novels have all the magic users evil, and other books have them all good. In the HP books, however, magic is neither. A statement of "magic is evil no matter how it is used" can be compared to a statement saying "martial arts should be banned from being taught because all they are is a way to hurt or subdue people". Such a statement would be false. Personally, I do not see why people consider magic evil at all. As for the Catholics (who believe so), there is very little separating witchcraft from divine miracles. As man cannot comprehend god's work, there is nothing to say that the two are not but variations of each other. As pointed out before, nothing god created for us to use is evil. This makes sense, as it would mean that god was at least partially evil as well. Indeed, getting back to the books themselves, magic is not even the main focus. The stories each have a distinct plot that could be set in many different backgrounds: not just the one of magic and a school of wizardry. Just as easily, could be swordplay in a training barracks. Or psychic compulsion in a futuristic intergalactic community. HP does not deserve to be banned for magical content any more than "To Kill A Mockingbird" does for including the "N" word (sadly, though, it is in some places.

Wow, kind of strayed from what I meant to say there. Anyway...

Pollutes: definitely not.
Expands: also definitely not.

Sure, HP as made younger people start reading, but not in a good and proper way. I have not read the new book, but from the other five I felt that the author was writing for a sub average intelligence audience. Yeah, the books were appealing, but why? They offer nothing new in terms of plot or interesting characters. The issues that young readers can relate to in the books are also present in a plethora of other, non-fantasy novels. The reason, to my mind at least, that young readers like HP more than other books that they can relate to is because HP allows them to relate without really making them think about their life. Fictional events similar to events that have happened to you that occur in a fantasy and (face it) ludicrous world allow you to just think "Hey, good job getting around that problem" or "Nice, that is a lot of fun". Fictional events similar to events that have happened to you that occur in your world in a real place may make you think "That wasn't how it happened. The bullies aren't beaten that easily" or "Sure, yeah, have your fun. Your parents won't be waiting for you at home to scream at you". It is obvious which one is more pleasant, and hence which one people would rather read. By presenting Harry the way she does, Rowling allows people to relate with out actually thinking about their lives, which is enjoyable but does not enhance your mind. Don't get me wrong, serious events portrayed in a comical manor are great, but only as long as you think about them. In "To Kill A Mockingbird"(sorry to bring up the same book twice), the writing style was funny in most parts and some things in the book were hilarious. However, the serious parts made you think, and they showed how not every confrontation in life turns out well, but life still must go on. Harry Potter does nothing like that. If you want to expand your horizons, read "To Kill A Mockingbird" or "Lord of the Flies" (That one included great portrayal of human nature, but made you shudder at some times from the cruelty. Not pleasant, but will make you think)

Anyway, these are just my thoughts as of now and if any would like to comment feel free to do so. Oh, and if I inadvertently insulted anyone from my comments about god, I apologize.

Flynn, I really don't like criticising people's choices, because I hate literary snobs myself, but let me get this right. First you said:

Quote:

---

Well, from my point of view, it pollutes them, but only in the sense that a child might as well pick up 'See Spot Run'. They'll get the same literary content from it.

---

Then you said:

Quote:

---

But equally, I've never given writing a go. Give me 5 years, and look for me between Ludlum and Crichton.

---

Oxymoron springs immediately to mind. Is it perhaps that 'See Spot Run' and Ludlum & Crichton are interchangable? I might add that I have enjoyed reading all 3, for various reasons.

Harry Potter expands young minds, because Ms. Rowling shows us imagination and interests us beyond our wildest dreams. Many people do not agree about reading Harry Potter because they believe that it affects their religion. However, God is not running your life. You make your own descisons. If he is really God, then he will understand. Because, you see, if some people are slightly complexed by their religion, then it is their problem, and Harry Potter might seem bad to some people, but in the end, it's just a story.