Problems In Harry Potter

[Istar]

I used to like Harry Potter. Then, in the 3rd book, J.K. Rowling started beating on Elves. Is there nothing sacred?

Besides, as Goroshimura said,The real shortcoming of Harry is that it boils down to an in-your-face allegory about racism.
I dont care what kind of allegory it is, really. It's the fact that there is an allegory at all bugs me. Allegory is the reason I hate all the books I read/fall asleep in English class. I like to take a book at face value instead of comptemplating its existance. Didn't the intro to LOTR say something along those lines?

Istar

[Úlairi]

I disagree, allegories are what make some books interesting. Tolkien used many in his works such as the Valar representing the angels of God or Iluvatar in Tolkien's case. Sauron symbolised evil and the Fellowship symbolised good. Many regard LoTR to be the allegory of the battle between good and evil.

[Istar]

Those aren't the kind of allegories I mean. They're obvious. Iluvatar is the one all-powerful being in Tolkien's works. The Valar are Iluvatar's angels, and I think it says that in The Silmarilion. The same obviousness goes for the Fellowship and Sauron's forces. However, Harry Potter did not make me think of racism the first time I read it; people really were different and there was a reason to dislike them. Besides, didn't you fall asleep while your English teacher went on and on about how in A Tale of Two Cities, every single little thing stands for something else?

Istar

[Úlairi]

Sorry about the misinterpretation, I thought you meant as in what the book actually symbolises, which is the definition of an allegory.

[Istar]

No problem, Ulairi. However, let's not lose sight of the more important issue that I didn't stress nearly enough in my first post: ROWLING CREATED THE "HOUSE" ELF. :mad: That's just wrong!!! Elves are majestic, noble, and anything but human slaves! Elves do not bang their heads on walls when they do something wrong! Elves are not forced to wear things besides clothes for clothes! AHHH!!
The lack of intellegence she instilled in dragons leads me to believe that she has no idea about fantasy. I have had enough of Harry Potter's messed-up, human-run fantasy world. I sincerely hope she stops writing.

Istar on a Rampage

[Úlairi]

Istar you are on no rampage. I have always hated 'Harry Potter' and I always will. But Tolkien did not create the 'elf', they had always been a part of mythology. Everyone here is making a comparison of Tolkien's Elves to Rowling's Elves in which they are significantly different. I much prefer Tolkien's elf but Rowling is allowed to depict an elf anyway she wants simply because there is no copyright on it.

[Taran]

BRAVO! Words of the wise. HP is the stupidest book I have ever read...the fantasy isn't even real fantasy! It's all about evil witches and wizards! J/k. But it is set in the real world, which I think is just about the stupidest thing for fantasy.

Kids today :o they REELY don't have a clue, huh?

*Taran on a rampage*

[Taran]

Besides, it was written by a woman. :eek: :o

Just kidding :D he he.

[Istar]

Ulari,
Tolkien created the Elves that we know and love. Most mythology and non-Ringers view them as much smaller and work-loving (i.e. Keebler Elves). Rowling took this idea to the extreme: slavery. True, no one can copyright the word Elf, but at least they can have some idea what it means. Many people say that from JRRT springs all modern fantasy novels. Rowling chose to be different. Not that being different is wrong all of the time, but in her case, well, it is. She should not have used the word Elf to describe them because they simply aren't Elves according to the descriptions given in mythology and Tolkien's works. Why couldn't she invent a new word like she did with Muggles?

Munching Nabisco cookies :D ,
Istar

[Úlairi]

Istar, I have always pictured you as me, starting off the same way in the forum. BtW, I look out for you. But you cannot make the statement that what J.K. Rowling did was 'wrong' IYO it was wrong, but it was not legally, Rowling chose to be different then Tolkien, which is a good thing, can you imagine a world where every book is the same? It would be dull, so Rowling decided to change it and to her I take my hat off, for wanting to be different than others is a rare quality these days. BTW, thankyou Taran for your kind compliment.

*** Ulairi on a rampage! ***

[Taran]

If HP is an allergoy on racism, then let me ask you this -

For the sake of argument, let's say that Muggles are whites and wizards are blacks.

So it's basically saying that all whites are stupid and hate blacks, and that all blacks are far superior, and should hate them back, right?

Now what message is that giving children?

There are other things wrong with it - the three friends are absolutly HORRID to eachother - supposed best friends. Frodo and Sam were models of loyalty and friendship - Harry, Ron and Hermoine? Nah.

There was also this constant self-centered attitude in the books - 'Oh, all the Muggles are sooo lowly and I'm a wizard and sooo lofty'.

Well, I'm a muggle, thank you very much!

[Istar]

Very true, Taran. However, I prefer to think of myself as a nonspellcaster. It's more politically correct.

Ulari, I'm just saying that Rowling does not know the meaning of the word Elf. It's almost like she took took the word and kept its meaning superficially. What she did can be compared to taking the word hobbit and associating it with a 3' tall, scarcely eating, mean humanoid without a care for traditon or family and a love for their own slavery to anyone who will be their taskmaster. Even my friends who are harry potter fanboys agree that J.K. Rowling's elfs are not in any way, shape, or form elves or even distantly related with the exception that they both have pointed ears. Not just when compared to Tolkien's Elves, but also when compared elves of fairy tales and mythology.
J.K. Rowling has no reason to deal with the issue of slavery with little kids who read her books. Especially when Ron and harry don't care at all what happens.
Anyway, I'm not saying Rowling should not be different. I'm just saying she should know what a word means if she uses it. I would have no objection to if she used the fairytale/mythology version of elves.

Istar

[Taran]

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly on that. They're like Santa's elves (oh, I LOATHE those!) Besides, it's not a very good book, all-in-all. Oh, it's well written for LEEETTLE-BEETY chilren, and only then so they can understand it. But Tolkien-readers should be beyond that childish reading level. Like I said, the author doesn't have a clue about fantasy, anyway!

[Úlairi]

Well spoken Istar, but as I have said there is no copyright on the word elf. You cannot use 'hobbit' as an example as that was strictly Tolkien's imagination at work I have always hated Harry Potter but I do not believe that Rowling held the meaning of elf superficially, rather she used it to write a book that has captivated millions all over the world.

[CyberGhostface]

OK, I like LotR but I also like Harry.
Racism in Rowling's novels? First Satanism, now this? Saying Wizards and Muggles symbolize Blacks and Whites is ludicrous.
Although I agree the first book was a bit childish, it has matured over the books. For some reason I cannot imagine Book 4, which features insanity and death, be read by a little kid.

Still, out of the two, LotR comes out on top. I like King's Dark Tower series second best, and in third place comes Harry. I just really doubt that Harry is full of rotten symbolism such as racism.

[Úlairi]

Agreed.

[LadyGaladriel]

Can we not get into this because Ive only just calmed down after seeing some guy on Tv saying that LOTR is discriminting because of BLACK riders and the East ( Mordor) being bad.
I feel that people who have thought of that haven't been taken in by the majical book and have just tried to think of a criticsm.

p.s LOTR rules and b4 reading Lotr I thought of elves as being tiny little things that fixed shoes of a night but now I think of them as elegant noble Beautifull people

[CyberGhostface]

Black Riders being discriminating? Who the hell said that? One of those people who believe Pokemon influences satanism.

[Istar]

Any book that talks about witchcraft and wizardry is going to have some one calling it satanic. But who really listens to them?

And Ulairi's right, I shouldn't have used hobbits as an example. Early D&D used the word hobbit instead of halfling like they do now, and they were sued. But you still get the idea, right?

Istar

[Taran]

ummmm I was trying to prove that HP WASN'T about racism. Ok, HP is a stupid book/series and is incomparible to LoTR. Period.

[Istar]

harry potter is not about racism. However, it seems to promote the idea that some people are better than others. Not neccessarily that white people are better, just that if you can do something that someone else can't, feel free to flaunt it in their face.

Istar

[CyberGhostface]

Everyone is welcome to their own opinions, but just because HP isnt as good as LotR (nothing is, actually) doesnt mean it cant stand on its own. I'm not sure why a lot of people hate Harry over here. I always thought they were good, not neccesarily the best fantasy series written, but good.

[Úlairi]

Yes, we are all entitled to our own opinions.

[Taran]

Sorry, guys! :( i didnt want to come across as ugly!

That was my opinion! I'm so open-minded, huh?:D

[CyberGhostface]

I never said it was wrong to hate Harry, Im just a bit suprised so many people hate it here.

[Úlairi]

Originally posted by Taran
Sorry, guys! :( i didnt want to come across as ugly!

That was my opinion! I'm so open-minded, huh?:D

Yes, but the ability to express oneself openly is a rare quality these days, so I take my hat off to you Taran!

[LadyGaladriel]

Originally posted by CyberGhostface
Black Riders being discriminating? Who the hell said that? One of those people who believe Pokemon influences satanism.

Someone who thinks they are being smart

[CyberGhostface]

I'm guessing they mean 'Black Riders' means 'Riders with dark skin color'. Or something.

[Úlairi]

Yes, I have always pondered that myself CyberGhostFace!

[Istar]

I'm sure that the kind of people who say that on TV get money for bad-mouthing other people. Whenever person X is making money for doing their job on TV, person Y is losing money because person X has nothing better to talk about than say Y's work is racist or bad or whatever. Why does the television seem have this power over people (in general, not us hopefully) that everything said has merit and should be accepted? This a sharp contrast to people talking normally to each other when sometimes opinons have to be forced and/or backed up with pages of proof.

Ulairi, I think this time we can agree someone's opinion can be all-out wrong. Unfair and unjust just don't seem to describe the opinions of anyone who think black riders are a racist idea.

Istar

[Úlairi]

Originally posted by Istar
I'm sure that the kind of people who say that on TV get money for bad-mouthing other people. Whenever person X is making money for doing their job on TV, person Y is losing money because person X has nothing better to talk about than say Y's work is racist or bad or whatever. Why does the television seem have this power over people (in general, not us hopefully) that everything said has merit and should be accepted? This a sharp contrast to people talking normally to each other when sometimes opinons have to be forced and/or backed up with pages of proof.

Ulairi, I think this time we can agree someone's opinion can be all-out wrong. Unfair and unjust just don't seem to describe the opinions of anyone who think black riders are a racist idea.

Istar

OK, finally I have some back-up. Now it is time for Ulairi to get going. I pondered this fact that the Black Riders is a racist idea, but yet the people who make this false claim have absolutely no prrof nor idea to support this false statement. The Black Riders were entirely Tolkien's imagination, nothing else. If these people think that Nine invisible men dressed in black cloth is racist, then I believe they should pick up a dictionary and find out what 'rqacist' means before they could make those allegations, which have absolutely no feet to stand on. I cannot see the fact that the Black Riders concept is in anyway racist. There is no evidence to show that what Tolkien meant was 'Black' Riders as in the Negro race. If he did then I would agree that the term 'black' is racist, but all Tolkien meant was that they were riders, dressed in black. These people will look for anyway to sue anyone and make a killing. And most of the people that sue for racism are European on behalf of the blacks and they make quite a lot of money from it. The Black Riders are in no way racist. I agree with you Istar in saying that that concept is entirely wrong.

[LadyGaladriel]

My thought is that many of charaters in stories that were evil have been black , (IM NOT BEING RACIST , I MEAN THAT WHERE THEY LIVE IS DARK AND DREARY AND THEY ARE DRESSED IN BLACK.)

[Úlairi]

Good.

[CyberGhostface]

If anything is popular, then they'll try to look for hidden messages that arent there. It gets very annoying.

[Úlairi]

It's all for sueing people such as Tolkien for being idealists so that they can get some easy cash, that's what it all boils down to.

[Istar]

Does anyone get the feeling we're kind of beating a dead horse here? We've been agreeing that the Black Riders are not racist for like 20 posts!

Anyway, why do you like/dislike harry potter? As already stated, I dislike how Rowling portrayed Elves and dragons.

[Úlairi]

Originally posted by Istar
Does anyone get the feeling we're kind of beating a dead horse here? We've been agreeing that the Black Riders are not racist for like 20 posts!

Anyway, why do you like/dislike harry potter? As already stated, I dislike how Rowling portrayed Elves and dragons.

Yes, Istar, agreed. You and I had an interesting debate over those points and they need not be touched on again as we would be 'beating a dead horse'. I never liked the way that Rowling portrayed the Wizards. Tolkien's wizards should be held in much higher esteem than Rowlings.

[Goldberry344]

Rowling pictured the fantasy creatures like Elvs and dragons in the little-kid story book way. Tolkien presented them in a "real life" way...its the closest to real life you can get with fantasy creatures like that.

i like Harry potter and JRRTs stuff...i do like JRRT better, but Rowling did a good job, too. i think that sometimes someone may have read an idea somewhere, thought it was cool, and used it, unintentially 'stealing' someone's work. this may be what happened with Rowling.

[Istar]

Did you miss my posts before? Rowling did not picture Elves in a fairy tale way. And I never read a fairy tale where dragons weren't intellegent enough to talk!

[Arwen_evenstar]

I quite like Harry Potter,I even met J.K Rowling! but you are right by saying LOTR has much more depth. I like the way everyting is so real and he describes things so we can really see them. Harry Potter SEEMS more like fantacy that LOTR.
I think there was a definite difference between the fims too. LOTR was sssooooooooooooooooooo kool, but Harry Potter wasn't as well made. LOTR was definitly better, both book and film!

[Goldberry344]

she pictured them in a santa-clause way. to me, santa is a fairy tale.

[Istar]

She didn't picture them in a santa-ish way. I'm sorry if I don't have this right (I'm Jewish) but don't those elves have some pride and respect from making toys for the good children? As far as I know, none of the movies ever pictured them as slaves who weren't allowed clothes and enjoyed bashing their heads against a wall when the did what was right instead of what they were told to do!

[Úlairi]

I definitely agree with Istar on this one.

[Goldberry344]

alack, we are talking of different elves. you think of House Elves, and im thinking about the ones that sing to the hogwarts students on valentines day, second book, but then again, those may have been very un-tolkienish dwarfs. i dont remember.

[Dain Ironfoot]

This ia fantasy, They can make people or things do what ever they want...

[Úlairi]

Originally posted by Goldberry344
alack, we are talking of different elves. you think of House Elves, and im thinking about the ones that sing to the hogwarts students on valentines day, second book, but then again, those may have been very un-tolkienish dwarfs. i dont remember.

Read back many many posts Goldberry344, Istar and I had an interesting debate as to that there is no copyright on 'Elves' therefore Rowling could make them however she wants.

[CyberGhostface]

Was the owning of House Elves looked in a positive way? Was JK Rowling trying to say slavery was 'cool'? No. It was looked in a bad way, like slavery was. None of the protoganists liked the fact that they were mistreated. Next they'll be saying Black House promotes child cannabilism.

[Istar]

Originally posted by CyberGhostface
Was the owning of House Elves looked in a positive way? Was JK Rowling trying to say slavery was 'cool'? No. It was looked in a bad way, like slavery was. None of the protoganists liked the fact that they were mistreated.

Ron and Harry seemed completely indiferrent. They were not part of the help, therefore, they were part of the cause.

Originally posted by Goldberry344
alack, we are talking of different elves. you think of House Elves, and im thinking about the ones that sing to the hogwarts students on valentines day, second book, but then again, those may have been very un-tolkienish dwarfs. i dont remember.

I'm fairly sure those were not elves.

[Úlairi]

Mmm, perhaps Istar. Ron and Harry were indifferent.

[CyberGhostface]

So I suppose Hermione starting the House Elf Liberation Front was being indifferent?

[Istar]

Can you read? RON AND HARRY!!! Hermione decidied to do something right and they didn't care! And didn't that come out to be s.p.e.w.? What a cheap bad joke.

[Úlairi]

Rowling's a disgrace to the writing world, she should get a job that suits her a little better. CyberGhostFace, I do not know what you see in those books, but those that read them need to get a little bit more of a life IMO.

[CyberGhostface]

Then, according to you, a rather large percentage of the world needs to get more of a life. :rolleyes:

[CyberGhostface]

Originally posted by Istar
Can you read? RON AND HARRY!!! Hermione decidied to do something right and they didn't care! And didn't that come out to be s.p.e.w.? What a cheap bad joke.

No need to get into a fuss. I didnt see Ulairi's post. Maybe the browser didnt refresh.

Although I think Ron could care less, Harry did try to help Dobby.

And to another point. How is JK a disgrace to the writing community? What do you want kids to read? R.L. Stine?

[Úlairi]

Originally posted by CyberGhostface
Then, according to you, a rather large percentage of the world needs to get more of a life. :rolleyes:

A large percentage of the world, pah! You call 0.833% of the world a large percentage? Perhaps you should go and look up what the word 'percentage' means in the dictionary CyberGhostFace. :rolleyes:

[CyberGhostface]

Where did you find out that information? I didnt do research on how many people like HP, but I do think that its a very popular book according to various sites I found. And, if she is such a disgrace, why do you read her novels? To find more things to nitpick?

[Istar]

I read the first two before I read LOTR, and I though they were ok, nothing special. After I read LOTR, I went back to potter 3 and 4 and I realized how bad they were. I only read the 4th book because I thought perhaps Rowling would pick up a little and stop with the bad humor and slavery.

[CyberGhostface]

See? If you compare ANYTHING with LotR its going to be 'bad'. So why bother?

PLEASE stop with the slavery bit. The series hasnt finished yet, we still got three books to go. Maybe the slavery thing will be concluded in the last one. Its a running sublot that has yet to be solved.

I cant comment on your comment about its bad humor because I dont know what you're talking.

[Istar]

Originally posted by CyberGhostface
PLEASE stop with the slavery bit. The series hasnt finished yet, we still got three books to go. Maybe the slavery thing will be concluded in the last one. Its a running sublot that has yet to be solved.
There is no hope for the series. House elves like how they are and Hermione alone cannot change the minds of an entire race. Harry only helped Dobby because he was Malfroy's.

Originally posted by CyberGhostface
I cant comment on your comment about its bad humor because I dont know what you're talking.

Off the top of my head: s.p.e.w., earwax-flavored jellybeans, dobby's fashion sense, and Gobbledegook as the name of goblin language (and by the way, goblins don't guard banks, they steal from them).

[Úlairi]

Originally posted by Istar
Off the top of my head: s.p.e.w., earwax-flavored jellybeans, dobby's fashion sense, and Gobbledegook as the name of goblin language (and by the way, goblins don't guard banks, they steal from them).

Istar, you are forgetting what non-magical people are called. 'Muggles'! That's a joke, Rowling's a joke, Harry Potter is the biggest joke of them all.

Originally posted by Istar
There is no hope for the series.

Well said Istar, but I will add something to it to get our points across to CyberGhostface even more. HARRY POTTER WAS A JOKE FROM DAY ONE. It became a joke as soon as Rowling put pen to paper. Is that clear enough for you CyberGhostface?

I should think so.

[CyberGhostface]

Here's something that shoud be clear, Ulairi: We both have different opinions, and you can't handle that.

[Úlairi]

No, I can handle your opinion, I just can't believe a person is arguing against something that he/she does not entirely comprehend, and that that book he/she is defending promotes slavery (AND IS A COMPLETE JOKE), is arguing that these books are actually of a high quality and are comparable to LotR and will not accept people 'dousing' it who have a right to 'douse' such trash. Besides, Rowling not only copied Tolkien, she copied many others. Including an author who published her book four years before HP and in her story, non-magical people were called 'Muggles'. See a resemblance? Perhaps not.

[CyberGhostface]

Oh, so you're siding with that Stouffer witch? I've actually read the book, and its ****.

Rowling lived in Britain, and that book barely sold in America. So please understand if I find it hard to believe that it reached Britain. By the way, Muggle is a slang word for pot.

Promotes slavery? Is slavery looked at in a positive way? Is it? Show me the excerpt that does.

Have you been listening to me? I have NEVER, EVER said that it was as the same quality as Tolkien. What I was saying is that just because its not as good as Tolkien doesnt mean its trash.

How is it a 'joke'? Because it features a more modern wizard? Because it uses humor? Because it supposedly ripped off some hack writer from America? (Which I really doubt, since Stouffer is coming up with these whinny-ninny excuses on why the original copies of her book were blown down from a snowstorm:p)

I will not accept people who hate HP? Have I ever said anything derogatory at you? You were the one that said HP fans need to get a life, not me.

[Arwen_evenstar]

Don't get mad, but I am siding with Ghostface on this one. I love LOTR, and yes it is A LOT better than Harry Potter, but they're great books for kids too read. I am reading it too my little sister at the moment, and she luvs it, and so does my other sister, and most of their friends. I don't actually see where Ghostface has said anything wrong. J.K Rowling is NOT a joke, as she has brought a lot of youngsters into reading, and most of them will eventually read LOTR and think Harry Potter was no-where near as good, but until that time they must read something, and this is a good series too start with!!!

[Istar]

Arwen, please read our above posts. The underlying messages in potter are not things to be in children's books.


Originally posted by CyberGhostface
By the way, Muggle is a slang word for pot.
I've never heard the word Muggle before potter. I know a few stoners (I am not one of them nor do I associate with them) and they, nor any movie has ever refered to weed as muggle.

Originally posted by CyberGhostface
Promotes slavery? Is slavery looked at in a positive way? Is it?
Slavery may not be all that positive, but neither is it negative in potter. Harry and Ron do nothing to help the condition, which should not exist in the first place. Who needs slaves when you have magic to do all those boring tasks?

Originally posted by CyberGhostface
Have you been listening to me? I have NEVER, EVER said that it was as the same quality as Tolkien. What I was saying is that just because its not as good as Tolkien doesnt mean its trash.
Yes, I have been listening to you. It's still trash.

Originally posted by CyberGhostface
How is it a 'joke'? Because it features a more modern wizard? Because it uses humor? Because it supposedly ripped off some hack writer from America?
It is a joke. It uses humor poorly. It has ripped off more than one American writer, it has drawn from all other fantasy novels.

Originally posted by CyberGhostface
I will not accept people who hate HP? Have I ever said anything derogatory at you? You were the one that said HP fans need to get a life, not me.
You have said nothing deragatory to neither Ulairi nor me. You have been rude. Most of your posts begin with sarcastic questions. Also,Originally posted by CyberGhostface
Here's something that shoud be clear, Ulairi: We both have different opinions, and you can't handle that.

[CyberGhostface]

Muggle IS a slang for pot. Trust me it is. It's defunct, but I read it somewhere. If you dont want to believe me, fine. But I did read it somewhere.

Slaveowners who mistreat the elves are looked in a fairly negative way. The only slaveowners who were looked in a positive light was Hogwarts, because Dumbledore treated them like servants instead of slaves and would be paid if asked.

Ripped off from more than one American writer? Excuse me? Is this from that hack Stouffer again? Or something else? All the ripoffs I have noticed are the general fantasy cliches: Dragons, wizards, etc.

Rude to you? I said you guys cant handle my opinions because I shared a different opinion and Ulari said "those that read [Harry Potter] need to get a little bit more of a life IMO."

I have NEVER said for you to get a life, I have NEVER said after a post "Is this clear enough for you, [insert name]? I should hope so" like Im person suffering from mental illness. I have merely disagreed with you.

[Istar]

If Muggle means pot, then Rowling has just called all of us potheads. Did she ever smoke weed? Maybe that's why harry's last name is potter.

Does it matter how the slaveowners look if the slaves themselves like how they are and will not give up their forced labor voluntarily?

Fantasy cliches are cliches by defination because other people used them. This feeds unoriginality.

You were starting posts with sarcastic questions before Ulairi said that potter readers need a life. However, I immerse myself in LOTR and DND and I need a life. No one needs to tell me that.

I have no clue where mental illness was implied. And you did not disagree, you asked for clarification.

[Úlairi]

Originally posted by CyberGhostFace
Muggle IS a slang for pot.

Show me HP-lover, and I'll believe.

Originally posted by CyberGhostFace
If you dont want to believe me, fine.

I won't, as with me I have my trust slang dictionary with both American, English, and Australian slang words, and trust me, it's not there. Therefore, I think that the HACK WRITER STOUFFER was pretty original in her idea.

Originally posted by CyberGhostFace
Slaveowners who mistreat the elves are looked in a fairly negative way.

That's bull**** CyberGhostFace, read the books again and you'll see, or perhaps you skipped that part?

Originally posted by CyberGhostFace
Ripped off from more than one American writer? Excuse me? Is this from that hack Stouffer again?

Who's 'dousing' literacy now? I believe that this so-called 'hack' could write over one-thousand times better than you could CyberGhostFace.

CyberGhostFace, the only reason you wouldn't 'douse' Tolkien's works is because you are on a forum that is a complete devotee to him. If you did in anyway 'douse' Tolkien's works, you would get everyone on the forum on your back. That is why you wouldn't do so, because you would be afraid of the consequences of your post. Perhaps you would be better suited on a 'Rowling Forum' or a 'Harry Potter Forum' or perhaps even a 'Literary Trash Forum' in which Harry Potter falls into that category better than any other book.

[Dain Ironfoot]

ok....... this has to be the wierdest post I have ever seen...

[Úlairi]

Steer clear of the HP-lover Dain, steer clear.

[Mormegil]

OK, I'm gonna get involved.

I have read the HP books and found them enjoyable, and I will read the others when they are published.
I see no reason for the comparisons between HP and LOTR. They are different styles of writing, aimed at different ages of people.

I obviously prefer Tolkien's works, but I can enjoy HP on its own merit. The books are popular for a number of reasons, including the fact that young people can get into them fairly easily.
What I say is that if these young people read HP, then they will progress to other fantasy stories such as LOTR. This can only be good.

I have not read the book by STOUFFER, so I cannot comment on the 'rip-off' allegations.

About the slavery aspect. The feelings I got from reading the books was that it was negative. We had Hermione protesting about freedom. Harry and Ron didn't get involved because the House-Elves they saw, (apart from Dobby), were content with their lives. They were not being persecuted, and were happy to work for Wizard families.
I think if they were being mistreated the Harry and Ron would have been more proactive.

Ulairi, Istar,
I think your being a little nasty to CGF, flaming him for liking HP.
Let him have his opinion, you have yours and you don't have to raed HP if you don't like it. Stop flaming people who do like it.

[Arwen_evenstar]

Thanx Mormagil, thats what I was trying too say earlier.
But Ghostface, if your sticking up for the book, why on earth tell us something like "muggle means pot"?

[Talierin]

Cool it down guys, and keep it nice!

[Istar]

Originally posted by Mormegil
I see no reason for the comparisons between HP and LOTR. They are different styles of writing, aimed at different ages of people.
We're not comparing HP to LOTR. We're dissecting HP and finding out why it is or is not a good book. Everytime someone says LOTR is better, they just restate hte obvious.
Originally posted by Mormegil
The books are popular for a number of reasons, including the fact that young people can get into them fairly easily.
What I say is that if these young people read HP, then they will progress to other fantasy stories such as LOTR. This can only be good.
Young people will often read one book and refuse to read others because nothing can possibly be as good as the first one, so why even bother? I do agree that young people should want to read, but they should read things that teach the right lessons. Not slavery.

Speaking of slavery, I did not get the negative feeling from the books. If you never know happiness or freedom, would you want to break free from a structured lifestyle? If only one person in the entire wizardly world thinks slavery is wrong, it cannot be bad.
Originally posted by Mormegil
I think if they were being mistreated the Harry and Ron would have been more proactive.
Wrong! House-elves were mistreated. Dobby was so used to being beat up for any reason that he did it himself when his master was not around. Also, let's not lose sight of what was enslaved. Elves. I need not reiterate my former posts.

Ulairi: calm yourself before you reply. Attack the book, not the defender.

[Mormegil]

Originally posted by Istar

We're not comparing HP to LOTR. We're dissecting HP and finding out why it is or is not a good book. Everytime someone says LOTR is better, they just restate hte obvious.
I never said that you were comparing them. But seeing as the title of this thread is 'Harry Potter vs. Lord of the Rings', I gave my opinion on the matter. The title of the thread suggests comparison, so I gave it.

Originally posted by Istar
Young people will often read one book and refuse to read others because nothing can possibly be as good as the first one, so why even bother? I do agree that young people should want to read, but they should read things that teach the right lessons. Not slavery.
That doesn't make sense. If young people like reading a book, then they will want to read more. There is no way that they would stop reading anything else ever again because they didn't think anything would be better than HP.
As for the slavery issue. I put it to you that the young people reading those books will miss the theme of slavery. It is people like you and Ulairi pushing it into their faces that brings attention to it. I do not feel sorry for the House Elves. The ones at Hogwarts are happy with their lives, and do not want freedom.

Arguing along your lines, I could say that no one should read Tolkiens works, because they have a theme of racism. ME is ruled by white races, whilst the dark skinned people from the East and South are evil. I don't actually think that its Racism, but I could twist it to mean so.
Does HP teach kids that Slavery is good? About as much as LOTR tells people that ethnic people are evil. If you want to think that way then go ahead.

Originally posted by Istar
Speaking of slavery, I did not get the negative feeling from the books. If you never know happiness or freedom, would you want to break free from a structured lifestyle? If only one person in the entire wizardly world thinks slavery is wrong, it cannot be bad.
The fact is that the House Elves do not want freedom. And Dobby didn't actually do much with his freedom did he?


Originally posted by Istar
Wrong! House-elves were mistreated. Dobby was so used to being beat up for any reason that he did it himself when his master was not around. Also, let's not lose sight of what was enslaved. Elves. I need not reiterate my former posts..
Dobby was mistreated by an evil wizard yes. But the House Elves at Hogwarts are treated well. Are you saying that because some people mistreat their pets, all people shouldn't have pets? Of coutrse not, that would be silly.
And if Dobby wants to harm himself than thats up to him.

Why do you have a problem with Elves being enslaved? In LOTR they are a superhuman race, it makes a refreshing change to see them down in the dirt like everyone else.


Originally posted by Istar
Ulairi: calm yourself before you reply. Attack the book, not the defender.
Ulairi can attack me in any way he sees fit. I will shoot him and his arguments down in flames.:D :p

The fact is, I see nothing wrong with people reading HP. It will not make people think slavery is a good idea. The stories are enjoyable and the plots are interesting. I say if people like it then let them read it without hassle.

[CyberGhostface]

The only reason why I didnt douse LotR is because I LIKE THE SERIES. If I didnt like it, if I were to douse it, I wouldnt sign up here. If you want to believe I secretly hate it, fine.

If I were to go to a 'literary trash forum' I would find tons of posts about Stouffer. Or would you like to explain why HP gets five star reviews at amazon and Stouffer gets 2 1/2 AT THE HIGHEST?

"Who's 'dousing' literacy now? I believe that this so-called 'hack' could write over one-thousand times better than you could CyberGhostFace."

It is clear you like Stouffer, or you havent read it. I refuse to call Stouffer's work 'literacy'. If you like it, fine. Im not telling you to get a life, unlike what you did to me.

I never said in my life that I could write better than any author, but with Stouffer I'll make an exception. If I tried, I could write better. Anyone can write better than "LILLY LAUGHS" And "LILY AND LARRY: MORE THAN JUST FRIENDS" Stouffer's work had no development, and I find it laughable you call Rowling a joke and appraise Stouffer. Her books feature sugary sweet bald creatures who sing and dance and laugh. Anyone, even my cat, could write better.


Why did I say muggle means pot? I regret it now because Istar is saying Rowling smokes weed, but I was trying to say that Stouffer didnt create it.

Slaveowners were looked in a bad way. Lucius Malfoy and Crouch were the only ones I've read in HP who mistreated elves and suffered for it in the end.

The elves DONT WANT freedom!!!! To them, freedom is a punishment and one was traumitized after being set free. Dobby was the only one who wanted to be set free, and still wanted to work.

And Istar, if my sarcasm was the reason for Ulari to say for all HP fans to get a life then what about Mormegil? Arwen_evenstar? Millions of kids around the world?

[Grond]

I will post this once and only once. This conversation/discussion needs to take a turn to nicety. Both my wife and I read Harry Potter and I find nothing slightly derogatory about her writing. It is fiction. it does not condone slavery any more than do many other fantasy novels.

It is fine to disagree with one another. It is okay to post the reasons for that disagreement. It is not okay to get personal about it. Let's stop this now before it goes any further. Agree to disagree but drop all the personal **** now.

[Úlairi]

Originally posted by Mormegil
Ulairi can attack me in any way he sees fit. I will shoot him and his arguments down in flames.

It was so nice of you to spruce that post up with a couple of smilies, but I still took it the wrong way Morm. Shoot my arguments down? Ha! I'd like to see that! The only reason you won that little argument of ours previously is because I accidentally misinterpreted the text and got a few dates wrong, otherwise, the outcome would probably be different.

[Mormegil]

Isn't that what smilies are for.:) :)

Perhaps if you quote me some passages from HP that promote slavery, I might understand where you are coming from.

[Istar]

Originally posted by Mormegil
I do not feel sorry for the House Elves. The ones at Hogwarts are happy with their lives, and do not want freedom.
Originally posted by CyberGhostface
The elves DONT WANT freedom!!!! To them, freedom is a punishment and one was traumitized after being set free. Dobby was the only one who wanted to be set free, and still wanted to work.
Sentinent races should never be happy enslaved.

Originally posted by Mormegil
Arguing along your lines, I could say that no one should read Tolkiens works, because they have a theme of racism. ME is ruled by white races, whilst the dark skinned people from the East and South are evil. I don't actually think that its Racism, but I could twist it to mean so.
Does HP teach kids that Slavery is good? About as much as LOTR tells people that ethnic people are evil. If you want to think that way then go ahead.
Black has always been associated with darkness, and darkness with evil. White is associated with light and good. Your statement would not hold up if you actually tried to debate from that point. Try again.
As I said before,
Slavery may not be all that positive, but neither is it negative in potter. Harry and Ron do nothing to help the condition, which should not exist in the first place. Who needs slaves when you have magic to do all those boring tasks?
Hermione alone campigned for elf rights. Go her. The rest of the characters have no values.

Originally posted by Mormegil
And if Dobby wants to harm himself than thats up to him.
Dobby was trained like you would train a dog to do that.
Originally posted by Mormegil
Are you saying that because some people mistreat their pets, all people shouldn't have pets?
House elves are sentinent creatures, not pets.

I think that covers everything that needs covering. Sorry for going out of order.

Istar

[Úlairi]

Well said Istar. I agree with you.

[Mormegil]

Ok, so you don't agree that Elves should be slaves in HP. That's acceptable. But I still say that the book doesn't promote slavery. And it is acceptable for children to read.

As for Hermione being the only anti slavery person. That is wrong, Harry helped to win Dobby's freedom because he was mistreated. If other Elves, like the ones at Hogwarts were being mistreated also, then I am sure he would have done more. The fact is that the House Elves are happy, Harry and Ron etc. would only upset the Elves by trying to give them freedom.
The way I see it is that 99% of House Elves in HP are happy and content with their lives, and the mere thought of freedom terrifies them. Dumbledore would have paid all the Elves at Hogwarts, but they wouldn't ask him. They are not slaves, they choose to work for free, and also I would say that they would have been allowed to leave Hogwarts, they just didn't want to.

[Istar]

If I remember correctly, Harry did not do anything to free Dobby besides make the Malfroy's lives unconfortable. One of the Malfroys threw a sock away and Dobby caught it.
If the house elves were freed, they could get over being upset. They, in time, would realize how much better free will is.
They are slaves. They recieve no pay and they must do what they are told. They are only happy because they were trained to be that way probably for generations, and know no other life.
I really want to know why house elves are needed at all! Isin't one perk of spellcasting the ability to be lazy and still get things done? If Dumbledore is such a great wizard, why can't he make a cauldron that cooks by itself, or have the rooms clean themselves?

[Úlairi]

Once again Istar beats me to it.

[CyberGhostface]

No, we mean how does it PROMOTE slavery? Like when does it look like slavery is the cool, hip thing which everyone must do to become popular? Just because some of the protagonists dont improve the situation doesnt neccesecarrily (sp?) mean it endorese slavery. I have seen kids who want to be wizards, to go to Hogwarts, but NEVER have I seen someone who wants to own a slave...

[tom_bombadil]

lotr all the way

[Istar]

Originally posted by CyberGhostface
No, we mean how does it PROMOTE slavery? Like when does it look like slavery is the cool, hip thing which everyone must do to become popular? Just because some of the protagonists dont improve the situation doesnt neccesecarrily (sp?) mean it endorese slavery. I have seen kids who want to be wizards, to go to Hogwarts, but NEVER have I seen someone who wants to own a slave...

This is the third time I'm saying this.
Originally posted by me
Slavery may not be all that positive, but neither is it negative in potter. Harry and Ron do nothing to help the condition, which should not exist in the first place. Who needs slaves when you have magic to do all those boring tasks?
House elves just aren't necessary, so why does Rowling even put them in? Ron and harry do nothing to help, so they are part of the cause and not the solution.

[CyberGhostface]

I think Ron and Harry don't stop the slavery bit because elves are happy the way they are.

Now, you havent answered me...when does it say that slavery is cool, hip, and the way to be popular?

[DrBat]

I am what you call a lurker; I visit the threads, but don't have anything to add so I just read what the what the others have to say. But this is riduclous.

J.K Rowling does not promote slavery.

Someone said that if the elves were freed, they would soon get over their traumas and live normal lives. Look at Dobby; no one really wants to pay a house-elf (this is not looked on positively). Dumbledore, however, treats his house elfs like equals. He pays Dobby, and would pay the others but they insist he doesnt. Is that Dumbledore's fault?

You say Harry doesn't help out' Ron and harry do nothing to help, so they are part of the cause and not the solution.; that is ridiculous. Harry has met only one house-elf that was mistreated; that house elf he freed. The series is not yet over, and by book 7 the house-elves will most likely be freed. JK is known for leaving loose ends in one book that get resolved later in the series. Just because they werent freed this book doesnt mean they wont be freed later on in the series.

[Istar]

Welcome, DrBat.

It does not say slavery is cool. It does not say it should be stopped either. Rowling simply says there is nothing bad about slavery. Don't become a slaveowner yourself, but if some else is, leave them alone.

DrBat, as for being a loose end, well, we'll see.

Now you can answer my question:
What idiot even though up the idea of slavery when the same tasks can be accomplished effortlessly using magic?

[taylorstaten1]

I love reading HP, that's what got me into LOTR. I also think that LOTR is a lot more sophistocated, but that doesn't mean HP is stupid. I just don't like the fact that there is so much merchandise around it.

[DrBat]

Originally posted by Istar
Welcome, DrBat.

Thanks. :)

It does not say slavery is cool. It does not say it should be stopped either. Rowling simply says there is nothing bad about slavery. Don't become a slaveowner yourself, but if some else is, leave them alone.

No it doesnt. The only person who owns a houseelf (and he doesnt own them) that is looked on with a positive light is Dumbledore; because he isnt what you'd call a slaveowner. He offers money, and if they wanted to leave, they'd leave. Slavery is when you dont pay them, and you don't let them go. Dumbledore treats them like employees. THe other two slaveowners we see, Mr.Malfoy and Crouch are both looked in a negative light; Mr. Malfoy is the father of the antagonist and is a death eater. Crouch is also bad, as he helped his evil son get away. He doesnt care for anybody, and was driven insane. I have yet to see a character who treats his houseelves like slaves and is looked on in a positive light. And the two houseelves (Dobby and Winky) owned by negative owners were freed and now live in Hogwarts.

DrBat, as for being a loose end, well, we'll see.

Yes, I guess we will.

Now you can answer my question:
What idiot even though up the idea of slavery when the same tasks can be accomplished effortlessly using magic?

Do we know for a fact Dumbledore could do it? Its not like he lives alone and the task is simply serving him food and making his bed; he runs a giant school that is responsible for hundreds and hundreds of children. Like I said earlier, the houseelves act more like his employees thatn his slaves.

[Úlairi]

I'm sitting this one out. Sorry Istar, it's just that this thread is extremely boring now. :o

[taylorstaten1]

i love reading hp over and over again, even thought i know what's going to happen next. But i think it really depends on the person

[Istar]

I don't mean Dumbledore visits each room and points his wand at every single dirty sheet, I mean he enchants the sheets and stuff to wash themselves. And with the food, why not make a cauldron that acts like a replicator from Star Trek, where the food just magicks itself into existance.

My final thought on the slavery issue: I believe that freedom should be forced when necessary. Pay the house elves, don't allow them to work weekends, teach them, provide a 5-step program. I, too grow weary of this thread, but I will not quit it until we are done.

[DrBat]

Originally posted by Istar
I don't mean Dumbledore visits each room and points his wand at every single dirty sheet, I mean he enchants the sheets and stuff to wash themselves. And with the food, why not make a cauldron that acts like a replicator from Star Trek, where the food just magicks itself into existance.

And how do you know he can do this? It's not like he waves a wand, says "Abrakadabra" and presto, everything's ok.

My final thought on the slavery issue: I believe that freedom should be forced when necessary. Pay the house elves, don't allow them to work weekends, teach them, provide a 5-step program. I, too grow weary of this thread, but I will not quit it until we are done.

That's the thing! They are free. Dumbledore would pay them, but they dont want to! They would probaby insist they dont want it. Forcing them to do something they dont want, THATS slavery! And, not to be rude, but I think you are digging to deep into the book, since this is the only place where I've heard complaints about slavery.
And I notice you didnt reply to my point about HP showing slavery in a negative light.

[CyberGhostface]

Originally posted by Istar
I don't mean Dumbledore visits each room and points his wand at every single dirty sheet, I mean he enchants the sheets and stuff to wash themselves. And with the food, why not make a cauldron that acts like a replicator from Star Trek, where the food just magicks itself into existance.


This isnt Star Trek. Some things in HP cant be done, not even by Dumbledore.

Originally posted by Istar
My final thought on the slavery issue: I believe that freedom should be forced when necessary. Pay the house elves, don't allow them to work weekends, teach them, provide a 5-step program.

They. Don't. Wan't. Freedom. Period. They're not brainwashed, they're not mistreated, they just work.

Originally posted by Istar
I, too grow weary of this thread, but I will not quit it until we are done.

Does 'we are done' mean that I say 'You are right. HP sucks, JK is a joke, and it promotes slavery.'? If so, then it won't ever be 'done'.

[Istar]

Originally posted by CyberGhostface
Some things in HP cant be done, not even by Dumbledore.
Don't give me that. As magic goes, creating and animating stuff is fairly low level in any fantasy series.

Originally posted by CyberGhostface
Does 'we are done' mean that I say 'You are right. HP sucks, JK is a joke, and it promotes slavery.'? If so, then it won't ever be 'done'.
We are done is when we all come to agreement about the slavery issue. Some people just like reading awful books, I can't force you not to read something. And I'm just here to prove a point. If you won't listen, I'm out of here.

DrBat, slavery is not shown in a negative light (Happy? I said it!) but its not shown in a positive light either! HP says whatever condition it is, leave it. Don't worry about doing the right thing.

Originally posted by DrBat
And, not to be rude, but I think you are digging to deep into the book, since this is the only place where I've heard complaints about slavery. [/OUOTE]
If this is digging too deep into a book, maybe I should stop thinking so much.:rolleyes:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CyberGhostface
They. Don't. Wan't. Freedom. Period. They're not brainwashed, they're not mistreated, they just work.
Look, if you think any sentinent species can enjoy nothing but continous work and no free choice without generations of brainwashing, I'm done here. That's just stupid.

[DrBat]

Originally posted by Istar

Don't give me that. As magic goes, creating and animating stuff is fairly low level in any fantasy series.

DO we know this for a fact? Just because one wizard book by one writer does something doesnt mean another book by another writer will follow the same rules

We are done is when we all come to agreement about the slavery issue. Some people just like reading awful books, I can't force you not to read something. And I'm just here to prove a point. If you won't listen, I'm out of here.

I am listening.

DrBat, slavery is not shown in a negative light (Happy? I said it!)

But it is!!! Have you been listening to what Ive been saying?! THe only people we've seen that treat their elves like slaves are the evil ones (and one was driven insane)! The one postive person who owns them treats them like his employees![i]

its not shown in a positive light either! HP says whatever condition it is, leave it. Don't worry about doing the right thing.

[i]Can I have an exact quote when this happens?

Look, if you think any sentinent species can enjoy nothing but continous work and no free choice without generations of brainwashing, I'm done here. That's just stupid.

They were doing what generations of their kind has done before them.

And I'll repeat; JK ROWLING HAS NOT YET FINISHED THE SERIES!
Do you really think JK will let them be 'slaves'? Any of the loose ends from before have been wrapped up positively, and I have no doubt this will also be wrapped up.

[Istar]

OMG I just realized I messed up and switched "negative" and "postitive". Wow, I have to proofread. I'm really sorry.

You're right, Rowling has broken from consisteny fantasy ideas. I have never read about a dragon I couldn't talk to in any other book. This reinforces the wizard's importance over every other group - nonspellcasters, elves, goblins, etc. That's not to conceited, is it? Shouldn't there be a challenge somewhere?

By not actively campaigning for house elf freedom and leaving the situation alone when it does not concern them, Harry and Ron aviod doing the right thing and take the easy way out. As role-models for little kids who read the book, they should be first in line to start de-brainwashing the myriad house-elves.

Once again, sorry for that goof-up.

[CyberGhostface]

Originally posted by Istar
You're right, Rowling has broken from consisteny fantasy ideas. I have never read about a dragon I couldn't talk to in any other book.

Bullsh*t. Read more fantasy.

Originally posted by Istar
This reinforces the wizard's importance over every other group - nonspellcasters, elves, goblins, etc. That's not to conceited, is it? Shouldn't there be a challenge somewhere?

Is it conceited that humans have importance over every group? Shouldn't WE have a challenge?

Originally posted by Istar
By not actively campaigning for house elf freedom and leaving the situation alone when it does not concern them, Harry and Ron aviod doing the right thing and take the easy way out. As role-models for little kids who read the book, they should be first in line to start de-brainwashing the myriad house-elves.

Please. THEY'RE NOT BRAINWASHED! It is natural for them to work. They enjoy it. Only Dobby doesn't, because he was abused. You're acting like Harry and Ron are ignoring terrorist attacks. The elves are happy the way they are.

Honestly, you are digging and digging to find the slightest hint of something wrong in those books and splashing it out. Dragons not being able to speak, slavery, ripping off fantasy writers, ripping off that Stouffer hack, etc, etc, etc.

[Istar]

Originally posted by CyberGhostface
Bullsh*t. Read more fantasy.
Let's not get mean. What good book have you read with a stupid dragon?

Originally posted by CyberGhostface
Shouldn't WE have a challenge?Yes, we should. That's what I just said. Wizards aren't always the top of the food chain.

Originally posted by CyberGhostface
Please. THEY'RE NOT BRAINWASHED! It is natural for them to work. They enjoy it. Only Dobby doesn't, because he was abused. You're acting like Harry and Ron are ignoring terrorist attacks. The elves are happy the way they are.
If they're not brainwashed, how do you explain their love of labor, because it is impossible for any sentinent race to be created for the sole purpose of serving another. I refuse to believe that. Was it selective breeding? Recombinant DNA? Permanent, inborn charms? I'm acting this way because this is how strongly I feel about this! Elves are not slaves!

I don't know anything about Stouffer, that was Ulairi. I wouldn't be suprised if she ripped or was inspired by someone that bad, though.

[CyberGhostface]

Fine, I'm sorry for losing my temper.

A good book with a stupid dragon? I assume you mean that it doesnt speak the same language as humans, because thats what dragons are in Harry.

Anyway, Eyes of the Dragon by Stephen King featured a 'dumb' dragon in the beginning of the novel. Despite being somewhat grisly at times, it was a very good book.

[DrBat]

Originally posted by Istar
OMG I just realized I messed up and switched "negative" and "postitive". Wow, I have to proofread. I'm really sorry.

Its ok.:)

You're right, Rowling has broken from consisteny fantasy ideas. I have never read about a dragon I couldn't talk to in any other book. This reinforces the wizard's importance over every other group - nonspellcasters, elves, goblins, etc. That's not to conceited, is it? Shouldn't there be a challenge somewhere?

If you read the book by JK Rowling about the beasts in HP, you'd realize that the wizards arent on the top of the food chain.

By not actively campaigning for house elf freedom and leaving the situation alone when it does not concern them, Harry and Ron aviod doing the right thing and take the easy way out. As role-models for little kids who read the book, they should be first in line to start de-brainwashing the myriad house-elves.

I would say what Cyber said; they're not brain-washed, which leads to...

[DrBat]

Originally posted by Istar
If they're not brainwashed, how do you explain their love of labor, because it is impossible for any sentinent race to be created for the sole purpose of serving another. I refuse to believe that. Was it selective breeding? Recombinant DNA? Permanent, inborn charms? I'm acting this way because this is how strongly I feel about this! Elves are not slaves!


I guess maids are not sentiniet beings then... because Dumbledore wants to pay them like he would a maid, but they refuse to be paid (except for Dobby)


And, about the de-brainwashing bit; lets say they are (which they arent). How would Harry and Ron do this? Theyre junior wizards who broke rules to even see the elves...

[Úlairi]

Istar, it pointless. Face it, you'll never get it through to them that HP is a big waste of time, that's why I left. It seems I have more foresight than you (no offence). I too love to argue and debate, it's what I am here for on this forum. But if the argument goes no where (read back and you'll see what I mean), then just leave it. Disappear, as I have.

[Istar]

Ulairi, I don't think so. This thread is going somewhere slowly. There's still maybe some hope that I'll come out of this with some respect for CyberGhostface, DrBat, and anyone else who like hp. And now, onto the discussion.

Originally posted by DrBat
I guess maids are not sentiniet beings then... because Dumbledore wants to pay them like he would a maid, but they refuse to be paid (except for Dobby)
Maids are a few people out of a race, not an entire race. They will not work unless they are paid. Try again.

Originally posted by DrBat
And, about the de-brainwashing bit; lets say they are (which they arent). How would Harry and Ron do this? Theyre junior wizards who broke rules to even see the elves...
They're the protaginasts. The majority of the school loves them and lets them get away with almost anything. They could start a volunteer club and get some of the teachers involved. It would probably not draw many takers, but they have a few years.

Originally posted by DrBat
If you read the book by JK Rowling about the beasts in HP, you'd realize that the wizards arent on the top of the food chain.
Then what, prey tell, is?

Originally posted by CyberGhostface
A good book with a stupid dragon? I assume you mean that it doesnt speak the same language as humans, because thats what dragons are in Harry.

Anyway, Eyes of the Dragon by Stephen King featured a 'dumb' dragon in the beginning of the novel. Despite being somewhat grisly at times, it was a very good book.
A stupid dragon is one incapable of speaking any language - English, Westron, Draconic, or otherwise. I dislike horror, but I'll take your word for it that Eyes of the Dragon is a good book. Still, what's the quote where you see anyone talking to the dragons, or the dragons talking amongst themselves?

[DrBat]

Originally posted by Istar
Ulairi, I don't think so. This thread is going somewhere slowly. There's still maybe some hope that I'll come out of this with some respect for CyberGhostface, DrBat, and anyone else who like hp. And now, onto the discussion.

I'm not gonna get in a big discussion here, but Ulairi that is only an opinion that HP is a waste of time (sales would prove otherwise).

Maids are a few people out of a race, not an entire race. They will not work unless they are paid. Try again.

Okay, so I goofed on the maid comparision. Sorry. But, like I said, Dumbledore treats the elves like helpers, not slaves. The only examples where elves were mistreated were by the evil characters. Can I have an example where an elf is treated poorly besides the villains?


They're the protaginasts. The majority of the school loves them and lets them get away with almost anything. They could start a volunteer club and get some of the teachers involved. It would probably not draw many takers, but they have a few years.

The only time Dumbledore lets Harry get away with stuff is when he breaks rules to save the school.

Also, even if the whole school supported Harry (which is unlikely), they're still just kids and I doubt Fudge would listen to them. Also, a teacher would probably close down the club (and I think that idea is a little ridiculous.) The only teacher who would agree with Harry is Dumbledore who
1. treats his elves nice
2. has no power over the ministry (as he parted from it in book 4)

Then what, prey tell, is?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0613325419/qid=1020803029/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/104-6350551-8119942
I got my copy from the library and returned it a while ago, so you'll have to take my word for it, but Rowling lists several creatures and gives them summaries; there are some which prey on wizards, yes

[Istar]

Originally posted by DrBat
I'm not gonna get in a big discussion here, but Ulairi that is only an opinion that HP is a waste of time (sales would prove otherwise).
Sales don't mean anything. LOTR didn't sell well when it first came out. Pokemon did, but it was a passing fad.

Originally posted by DrBat
like I said, Dumbledore treats the elves like helpers, not slaves. The only examples where elves were mistreated were by the evil characters. Can I have an example where an elf is treated poorly besides the villains?
The house elves are so brainwashed as a race that they don't need anyone to treat them badly. Through their messed-up code of honor, they keep themselves in submission no matter how well they are treated.

Originally posted by DrBat
The only time Dumbledore lets Harry get away with stuff is when he breaks rules to save the school.

Also, even if the whole school supported Harry (which is unlikely), they're still just kids and I doubt Fudge would listen to them. Also, a teacher would probably close down the club (and I think that idea is a little ridiculous.) The only teacher who would agree with Harry is Dumbledore who
1. treats his elves nice
2. has no power over the ministry (as he parted from it in book 4)
Dumbledore lets harry get away with an invisibility cloak and going in closed-off areas for personal experience, even when they foreshadow saving the school. Does it matter that Dumbledore has no power over the ministry? If he can show them that Hogwarts is just as happy, if not happier with free-willed house-elves, wouldn't that be a start? This would be a long term campaign, as it would take years and maybe generations of house elves to make them hate their former condition. Why would teachers want to close this hypothetical club down, unless they're against righteousness, just like harry and Ron?

I saw that book on Amazon after you first mentioned it. Do you remember the names of any of the wizard-eating creatures?

[Beorn]

I've split this and the other thread

Also, I ask that everyone...Mike (Istar), Ulairi, CGF, DrBat...read over this entire thread, and look at how poorly you have treated each other. Remember, 'attacking a post is OK, attacking a poster isn't'.

Firstly, Ulairi, if you continue to participate, be nicer. CGF, watch your language. You can easily get around saying curses.

Ok DrBat...some advice....it's a lot easier to read replies when your reply text is outside of the quote...you can have multiple quote tags in one post (but no nested ones), so you can divy up the post and reply to each part.

[DrBat]

Okay, Beorn; Ill try to do as you say. :) BUt I dont recall attacking any posters. :confused:

Sales don't mean anything. LOTR didn't sell well when it first came out. Pokemon did, but it was a passing fad.

HP is not pokemon. HP is not a fad. Usually, when something sells a lot, its good (exceptions: PKM). Now, if it doesnt sell a lot, it can still be good, like LOTR. I think LOTR is better than HP, but HP is still a good series.


The house elves are so brainwashed as a race that they don't need anyone to treat them badly. Through their messed-up code of honor, they keep themselves in submission no matter how well they are treated.

Yes, they have a messed-up code of honor. No, they are not brain-washed.


Dumbledore lets harry get away with an invisibility cloak and going in closed-off areas for personal experience, even when they foreshadow saving the school. Does it matter that Dumbledore has no power over the ministry?

Yes, because only the ministry can effect the house elves.

If he can show them that Hogwarts is just as happy, if not happier with free-willed house-elves, wouldn't that be a start?

Yes again. However, in book 4 he broke his ties w/the ministries since they wouldnt listen to him about VOldemort coming back. So I doubt they would listen to him.

This would be a long term campaign, as it would take years and maybe generations of house elves to make them hate their former condition. Why would teachers want to close this hypothetical club down, unless they're against righteousness, just like harry and Ron?

Snape is. As for the others, they probably dont want to mess with the ministry.


I saw that book on Amazon after you first mentioned it. Do you remember the names of any of the wizard-eating creatures?

Actually, it turns out I own the book, as I found out today when I was cleaning up. :) let's get started.

The creatures are grouped by how dangerous (X is harmelss, XXXXX is a known wizard killer).
Here are some XXXXX creatures.

ACROMANTULA- monstrous, eight-eyed spider capable of speech... prefers large prey... highly dangerous to wizard and Muggle alike...

CHIMERA- Rare greek monster... vicious and bloodthirsty... extremely dangerous...

LETHIFOLD- Resembles a black cloak half an inch thick (thicker if it has recently killed and digested a victim)...

NUNDU- East African beast that is arguably the most dangerous in the world.... breath causes disease virulent enough to eliminate entire villages...

There, those are excerpts from the creature's summaries, word for word. There are more in the book that are also dangerous.:eek:

[QueenBeruthiel]

Interesting discussion..
You could consider the Shrek dragon a dumb dragon, she doesn't talk and is in love with a donkey.
Or is Shrek not "serious" enough fantasy to count?

[Beorn]

Originally posted by DrBat
Okay, Beorn; Ill try to do as you say. :) BUt I dont recall attacking any posters. :confused:



You didn't, just giving you a bit o' advice ;).

[Istar]

Originally posted by QueenBeruthiel
You could consider the Shrek dragon a dumb dragon, she doesn't talk and is in love with a donkey.
Or is Shrek not "serious" enough fantasy to count?
Yes, that dragons is quite stupid. Shrek is neither serious nor a book, so it dosen't count. Anyway, what I'm trying to say here is Rowling has no clue about many fantasy creatures.

Why do you refuse to accept that the house elves are brainwashed when you cannot come up with a better reason why they love work?
I can't tell you not to like hp, you're entitled to your opinon.

I believe that this is as close to agreement that we will ever get: The house elves are enslaved by both wizards and their own misconceptions of freedom. Something should be done about it. Can we agree on these points?

[DrBat]

Yes, that dragons is quite stupid. Shrek is neither serious nor a book, so it dosen't count. Anyway, what I'm trying to say here is Rowling has no clue about many fantasy creatures.

No, she's interpretating them different than other authors. How do you know she's doing it wrong? Have you met a dragon, therefore, you know how they act and dont act?

Why do you refuse to accept that the house elves are brainwashed when you cannot come up with a better reason why they love work?

Because (not to be rude) you cant accept that JK will[/i] change this in her upcoming books. I wanted to satisfy you with something until she did do the book. What makes you think JK wont change this? Is she just going to drop the plot point and forget? Judging from her previous books, thats just not like her.

[b] can't tell you not to like hp, you're entitled to your opinon.

Thanks.

I believe that this is as close to agreement that we will ever get: The house elves are enslaved by both wizards and their own misconceptions of freedom. Something should be done about it. Can we agree on these points?

I agree; what I dont agree is your idea that kids will think slavery is ok (not cool, or hip) after reading the book. Kids arent stupid, they know slavery is wrong. And JK is showing that in her book. Some of the characters dont act like it is, but maybe their ignorance was intentional.

One of the reasons why HP is popular is because Harry acts like a kid. He isnt perfect; he loses his temper sometimes (sometimes with his friends), sometimes he gets cold feet and doesnt know what to do, somnetimes he just screws up, sometimes he doesnt have an answer.

I dont think the book would be as popular if Harry was 100% perfect and had an answer for everything. It makes him more realistic.

[Istar]

I'm judging on what has happened thus far, not what you expect will happen.

Kids arent stupid
Out of context: You've never been to my school.;)
In context: I can't imagine a reason why their ignorance was intentional, but again, we'll have to wait and see.

Harry potter wouldn't be as popular if he was perfect; the start of his story is him thinking that he was an average, friendless loser. I agree with you there.

[DrBat]

Okay, fine I wont guess on the future. what Im trying to say is, I dont think kids will think slavery is ok after reading HP.

[Istar]

I agree with you there; the whole issue is nowhere near the importance of everything else in the books I'm very glad we've come to agreement on this.
DrBat, you're a very nice person. I hope that you participate in other threads instead of becoming a lurker again.

Istar

[DrBat]

Thanks. :)
I do plan on posting again; the only reason why I was a lurker was because I didnt sign up yet.

[CyberGhostface]

I am sorry for losing my cool at you before, Istar.

[Istar]

No problem.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Most allegories are all in the mind of the reader.

[arisen pheonix]

wanna hear some one beat one elves read the elvenbane by andre norton and mercedes lackey the elves are the villians!!!

[Istar]

Please tell my English teacher about allegories in her mind. Maybe she'll stop making us learn all the crazy, nonexistant ones that she made up.

I've never read Elvenbane. Are the Elves portrayed as cunning, tricky villans, or harrypotterlike slaves with less-than-orc intellegence? And did you like the book?

[arisen pheonix]

hhhhhmmmmmmm a rather backward form of intellengent mages portrayed as selfish greedy arogant you know whats

[Istar]

That still makes them better than harry potter elves. Maybe I'll read it eventually, but I have like 10 other books I want to read first.

[LadyGaladriel]

Lets get a hint of persepective and a touch of Reality.


Harry Potter = Elves slavery



LOTR = Well we all know what they are like.



Now People have different veiws on what elves are like eg Santas elves ect.

This all depends on the person . I personally like different books and I dont just read LOTR. I have seen many examples of how elves are portrayed and are you going to accuse every one of them of being slightly different. Tolkien (a genius as he was ) didn't invent elves. The mythology of Elves has been around for ages. Lets not fight. I enjoyed Potters jokes and it was a real unputterdowner.

Tolkien was just the same .

Now lets be nice and treat each other (and the veiws ) with repect.


~~~~~~~Lady Galadriel~~~~~~~~~

[Úlairi]

Originally posted by Eternal Phoenix
Most allegories are all in the mind of the reader.

I can't believe what I just read!

[Darth Saruman]

Harry Potter doesn't hold a candle to Ursula K. LeGuin's A WIZARD OF EARTHSEA.

[Lantarion]

I realize that this is a very old thread, but I'd like to emphasize a point nonetheless.
Originally posted by Istar
ROWLING CREATED THE "HOUSE" ELF. :mad: That's just wrong!!! Elves are majestic, noble, and anything but human slaves
...only in Tolkien's conception. This conception was later copied by many, many fantasy writers. The old, 'true' conception of an 'elf' was exactly what Rowling shows us: a small, long-eared, hard-working and often mischievous (e.g. Dobby, although not actual mischief).
You seem to think that every fantasy writer should adopt Tolkien's conception of Elves, and leave it at that. I for one think that Rowling knew that she was taking a small risk by using the term 'Elf' in a new fantasy series, because it was bound to be compared to Tolkien's works. However, she dared to break the mould (a very able and excellent mould) made by Tolkien, and added yet another characterictic into her world which makes it so diverse. The House-Elves also raise ethical and philosophical questions (as can be seen in Book 4, with S.P.E.W.), and confusion among some characters (Hermione just cannot comprehend that the House-Elves really enjoy working; she is looking at the scene from a wholly human and non-objective point of view), which makes the characters even more human.

True, it is slightly irksome to compare the term 'Elf' as seem in the 'Goblet of Fire' and in the 'Silmarillion'. But all in all they are wholly different works, both spectacular in my opinion.

Comments and opinions are welcome.

Oh, PS:
Originally posted by LadyGaladriel
Tolkien (a genius as he was ) didn't invent elves.
He didn't invent the term, of course not; but he did invent his conception of Elves as proud, noble, tall warriors and poets of great legends. I might be mistaken, but I doubt there are any records of 'Elves' in the sense that Tolkien portrayed them in before the publication of the LotR and Sil (the Hobbit seemed to hold a rather old-fashioned point of view towards them, not quite as 'great' as in the Silmarillion).

[Elendil3119]

Actually, I think that the Medieval idea of Elves is what Tolkien was attempting to revive when he began the writing of the legendarium. Remember, his purpose in 'creating' Middle-earth was to provide some sort of mythology for England. Elves were turned into your typical pointy-shoed Santa elves by writers during the 19th and 20th centuries. These were not the original elves; rather, I think Tolkien's elves were the 'originals'. At least that's my perspective on the subject...

P.S. Were house-elves really mistreated? :D

[Lantarion]

P.S. Were house-elves really mistreated? :D
Not all, but Dobby certainly was.
And why the grinning smilie? :confused:

Although I think for the most part less kindly wizard families considered them to be lowly servants, and took them for granted a lot. But not all families even had House-Elves, and some owners treated them nicely enough, I suppose.

[Elendil3119]

Originally posted by Lantarion
Not all, but Dobby certainly was.
Agreed.
And why the grinning smilie? :confused:
Mostly because I crack up every time I hear about SPEW. :D
Although I think for the most part less kindly wizard families considered them to be lowly servants, and took them for granted a lot. But not all families even had House-Elves, and some owners treated them nicely enough, I suppose.
I'm not sure about privately-owned elves, but it's clear that Hogwarts' elves were not mistreated.

[Lantarion]

Ah, but I said "wizard-families" on purpose. I know the Hogwarts House-Elves were treated nicely, Dumbledore would see to that. :)

LOL, I always laugh as well when Ron says "spew". :D

[Arthur_Vandelay]

I have a theory, and forgive me if this has been raised before (I've only just finished reading the series). In The Half-Blood Prince, Draco Malfoy was using Polyjuice Potion to disguise himself as his cousin, Nymphadora Tonks. Hence her altered Patronus, and the fact that both Malfoy and herself appear increasingly "sickly" throughout the book.

Thoughts?

[Wonko The Sane]

Thestrals really annoy me.

Harry has seen BOTH his parents die, AND Quirrell, AND Sirius and yet he doesn't see them until Cedric dies?

What gives, man?

[Thorondor_]

Out of sheer boredom, I started reading HP books; some things really puzzled me:

- if an owl can find anyone anywhere (if I remember correctly), why didn't they use owls to track Sirius or You-know-who?

- how come Albus didn't perceive the problem with professor Quirell (or with the other Defense teachers)?

[Barliman Butterbur]

...I dont care what kind of allegory it is, really. It's the fact that there is an allegory at all bugs me. Allegory is the reason I hate all the books I read/fall asleep in English class.

===============================

allegory |?al??gôr?| noun ( pl. -ries) a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one : Pilgrim's Progress is an allegory of the spiritual journey. • the genre to which such works belong. • a symbol. DERIVATIVES allegorist |-ist| noun ORIGIN late Middle English : from Old French allegorie, via Latin from Greek all?goria, from allos ‘other’ + -agoria ‘speaking.’

===============================

How very odd. Are you saying this simply because Tolkien didn't like it? Great works have been written and been great precisely because of their allegorical nature.

People living under the despot's boot were able to publish anti-despotic statements because what they wrote was subtle allegory. Seriously, what's your problem with allegory?

But back to HP: anyone who wants to can find logical inconsistencies and flaws in practically any author's works, including Tolkien. So what? There's something called "willing suspension of disbelief," which, if not used out of a certain largeness of heart, will likely spoil every reading of fiction you'll ever have. Unless some absolutely major flaw smacks me in the face, I'm quite willing to allow Rowling and every other sincere and talented writer their foibles and weaknesses. I don't read to tot up flaws, I read (or watch movies) to be entertained. Were that not the case, I'd still be jumping up and down over some of the liberties that PJ took in his movies.

I think that fault-finding is a problem that crops up among those with long familiarity with an author's works: the magic and dazzlement of first readings (or viewings) has evaporated, and it's then comes the tendency to start analyzing. And that's when the dissatisfactions begin to mount. I believe one must guard against the tendency if one intends to enjoy a given work for a long time to come. I know I am absolutely incapable of even writing a good short story, let alone something like LOTR or the HP series, and am greatly appreciative of those who can.

Barley

[Lorien]

Hmm, obviously Tolkien's like waaay better than Rowling but thats just my opinion. Everyone's entitled to their opinions and although not all of them deserve even handed attentions I believe in following a toleration policy. As for the allegory topic, I mean what good is a book without allegories? I think that no matter how hard anyone tries to write a book without allegories its never going to work because they'll probably creep in subconciously or something.

Arthur_Vandelay I have a theory, and forgive me if this has been raised before (I've only just finished reading the series). In The Half-Blood Prince, Draco Malfoy was using Polyjuice Potion to disguise himself as his cousin, Nymphadora Tonks. Hence her altered Patronus, and the fact that both Malfoy and herself appear increasingly "sickly" throughout the book.

Thoughts?

Wow! I was just reading this and I'm like woooooo!! Crazy conspiracy theory!! Erm, first off it'd be kinda hard for Malfoy to get Tonks' hair for the Polyjuice (they do require that right?), secondly Rowling kinda hinted (or did she outright mention? I can't seem to recollect...) that Tonks' had the 'hots' for ol' Remmy-chan and *that's* why she had a change of patronus (supposedly extremley strong emo's can do that...)


Out of sheer boredom, I started reading HP books; some things really puzzled me:

- if an owl can find anyone anywhere (if I remember correctly), why didn't they use owls to track Sirius or You-know-who?

- how come Albus didn't perceive the problem with professor Quirell (or with the other Defense teachers)?

Hehehe!! 'Cos old Voldie probably has his DE's shooting down owls as soon as they get within a hundred mile radius of wherever he's hiding...:D

Albus, yes, seems to have such errant behavior that I wonder if he suffers from MPD... Sometimes he's like all knowing, then he's all stupid ( I mean seriously how can he of all people not figure out Moody wasn't the real deal in Book 4?), If that worked then all Voldemort has to do is disguise like a whole bunch of his lackey's as close friends/relations/whatever of Harry and send the kid on his way...Duumbledore would probably at that point be eating some candy or the other...


Ok, so here's my pet peeve...I know this might sound weird...so be ready...but did anyone else feel bummed when Harry and Hermione didnt get together? I mean throughout all the books I spotted (or thought I spotted) all these 'moments' b/w them and now Rowling's saying 'Sorry, thats not happening...' Any comments anyone?

[Barliman Butterbur]

As for Tonks and Remus: Tonks was almost dying of the frustration of unanswered love. Remus kept to the position, "Why in the world would you want to marry someone like me?" Finally, his friends convinced him that he was being an idiot to turn away Tonks' love for him. By the time of Dumbledore's funeral, Remus saw the error of his ways, gave in to Nymphy's love, and her hair was once more its usual fiery pink. :) ("Nymphadora" — with a name like that, one can only imagine the nature of their love life...woo hoo! :p )

Barley