Rahul said:
Fuck no, kids read plenty lately, just not in book format. Reading Harry Potter under the misbegotten guise of education is as effective as calling Columbine a good targeting exercise for would-be gun enthusiasts.

I didn't say it was educational, I said it got them to read... anything that broadens the imagination is good for children, have you read the later of the books? they are really good in my opnion...

I haven't read any of the books (obviously), because I have better things to do with my time.

Harry Potter remains a meek retreading of prior fantasy indulgement already sufficiently delved by such series as Chronicles of Narnia and the variety of Roald Dahl exercises in frenetic imaginations. It has no added value other than being yet another fantasy series.

All of your points, including your later posts, contain strong points Rahul. I do agree that books are incapable of providing the same scale of accessibility and expedient delivery of information that newer medians offer. To argue such points would be foolish and futile, "poorly calculated" even. But to be honest, this standpoint is really irrelevant. Allow me to elaborate on what I wrote in my last post. I had asked how often do you, or any reader for that matter, pick up a novel (specifically that of a genre fiction) that really prove educational? What I had intended to insinuate with this remark is that few readers will pick up a book like Harry Potter to get any more out of it than a story. Its true that books that share the fantasy classification of Harry Potter, books like the Chronicles of Narnia (which I am currently reading, and just happens to be a very awesome series) can provide deep and meaningful parallelisms (like the bible in this case). However, considering that the target audience for Harry Potter is children, and with current trends in society and the various competitors for the limited attention of young adults in mind, it is my belief that J.K. Rowling found enough common ground in relating life instances of her characters with that of the life of young adults, enough, at least, to allow her readers to identify with the story and its characters.

It seems to me, Rahul, that you may prioritize reading primarily on its ability to provide an intelligible and concise outlook. I understand, and agree with you, that Harry Potter offers little diversification; it could accurately (and obtusely) be described as "just another fantasy story". I also can not provide you an incisive answer that is capable of alluding to value of increased reading from children... at least to the value you expect and desire. And I must also interject that I respect these expectations, they are well founded... BUT, nevertheless, it is completely unreasonable and fatuous to believe Harry Potter should alter the way children develop and grow, and to fault it for its inability to do so is ridiculous. Only a monomaniac would expect every book and story ever written to contribute to the moralistic and further development of a person. I also never presumed to imply, and I believe no one else did either, that books were the only source capable of providing viable learning conditions. You are completely correct in saying that children (everyone for that matter) will assimilate information and formulate ideas from the influence of various locations, peoples and outputs. Finally, I would like to point out that I am not a Harry Potter fanatic, and far from being any type of advocate. But I do consent that the story, although devoid of any ability to install moral fiber and influence growth, is both interesting and entertaining. And it is for no other reason than this that I attribute the success of this series. And I'll close by saying that perhaps getting kids and young adults to read more will not have quite the significant impact some expect, but I believe it sure as hell couldn't hurt. Stories, like dreaming, (and this encompasses video games, movies, TV and the like too... especially video games) always provide a fun and interesting inspiring source for creative energy. And if a story is capable of sparking the imagination and can subtly encourage young adults to be creative, sometimes that can be a great thing. Lol, I should also apologize for the length of this post... it doesn't exactly "inspire" anyone to believe that I am not an advocate.

OK.

Isn't it funny how one word responses can make you feel like an idiot after rambling? Haha...ah... nevermind.

Why do you think I posted that?

Thanks Rahul, thats awesome. I solemnly swear that I will avoid debate with you forever more, for sake of what little pride I have that remains.

I think your entire rant was basically you agreeing with my point of view and then arguing with yourself as to whether you were agreeing with my point of view or not. Hence, I think a reply to your post by yourself would be more enlightening than me deconstructing it point by point.

By the way keeping with this forum HARRY POTTER ROCKS!!!!!!!!

Edit (Rahul): kindly speak English on this forum; using crude iconography to accentuate your point of view is neither effective, nor intelligent

Rahul said:
I haven't read any of the books (obviously), because I have better things to do with my time.

Harry Potter remains a meek retreading of prior fantasy indulgement already sufficiently delved by such series as Chronicles of Narnia and the variety of Roald Dahl exercises in frenetic imaginations. It has no added value other than being yet another fantasy series.

isnt that like saying that any succesful fantasy rpg remains a meek retreading of prior fantasy indulgement by such series as final fantasy?

Since you havent read the books and the movies are lesser versions of the books, you really cant judge its quality till you have read them. Shit its like saying Mario sucks because the movie from the early 90's didnt tickle your fancy

but eh, whatevah

Hell yeah, Final Fantasy is -also- pretty meek, all things concluded. Also, I do base my opinion solely on having seen the movies. But if the movies as a concept are baseless and vapid, the books will not be much better, regardless of whether they add more detail.

Don't forget I'm not relentlessly bashing Harry Potter here, I'm merely making a point about its inadequacy as "getting kids back into reading" and other such bullshit.

Yeah I know what you mean, but then again you didnt like Spiderman 2, so your pov's are hard to understand sometimes =D

That's because Spiderman 2 is the most inane vapid piece of horseshit ever made. There is no worse movie.

I’m not entirely sure I was agreeing with you, more conceding that some of your points are correct... but we still maintain two entirely different standpoints concerning Harry Potter, regardless if it’s making children read more. However, I very much enjoy reading through your opinionated statements for they are almost always humorous, so even if I am wrong at least I can get a good laugh.

And concerning Spiderman 2... yeah, that was an extremely ill made movie, with some of the poorest dialogue I've ever seen. I was also not a fan of the whole "Crucified Spiderman" on the train at all. The first one, although quirky, was not entirely bad so I had hoped the second one would improve. But true to the Toby McGuire and Kerstin Dunce way, in my opinion, things could only get worse. I hope Fantastic 4 can restore faith in Marvel gone movies.

Fantastic 4 will be awesome. The cast is great and I can picture each of them as the character they are playing. Out look good.

Aberkong said:
Kerstin Dunce

This is the best post ever made.

Haha, Im not sure if that was sarcasm or not, but as you can see, I don't much care for her. The only movie she gave anything close to an exceptional performance was Interview with the Vampire. Nowadays, her roles just make me look forward to the day the Dunce is Done.

Her name is Kirsten Dunst, you cretin!

Let's discuss Katie Holmes.

Katie Holms is cool. Did you know she is a virgin? she is hard up for some sex but she took a vow of celebacy until she is married. Maybe that is why they are in such a rush to get married.

Or, more likely, she's just full of shit and enjoys living beneath the guise of virginity because it helps assist her teeniebopper image.

Rahul said:
But if the movies as a concept are baseless and vapid, the books will not be much better, regardless of whether they add more detail.

The movies as a concept aren't either of those, the 'concept' is good, but like a lot of movies the execution leaves a lot to be desired for. The Chronicles of Narnia in my eyes as a film is baseless, but that does not mean in any way the books 'will not be much better'. The film's concept is good, but I can't see it working, only because with such a force behind the screenplay. It has a lot to live up to and chances are strong it will not fully live up to them.

I have no intention of entering into or continuing this debate, I just felt compelled to point out that stating that a film's crappiness has anything to do with an original story that it's based on is not the most intelligent of observations. I mean sure, if the story sucks the movie probably will too, but think about Chronicles of Narnia, and realise that with pathetic western society's view on children and the media, too much will be left out.

I refer to certain scenes that are too violent or confronting, that were perfectly acceptable in the book, but for some reason are not in the world of children's cinema. Western society blows in this respect, and the sooner someone works it out the better. On that note, if it was ok in the books, but not in the film surely it says something about the precious 'new media' that have taken over books. That it is limiting, even if it's only because the rating system and parents suck.

And that's my two cents, written at the end of a distrubingly crappy exam-filled week at 2:46AM, hurrah.

Her name very well may be Kirsten Dunst, but I will always reference her as "The Dunce". Its a much more fitting title for such a... talented actress.

Nephtis said:
I have no intention of entering into or continuing this debate, I just felt compelled to point out that stating that a film's crappiness has anything to do with an original story that it's based on is not the most intelligent of observations. I mean sure, if the story sucks the movie probably will too, but think about Chronicles of Narnia, and realise that with pathetic western society's view on children and the media, too much will be left out.

Good points. However, I still submit that the underlying idea of Harry Potter, the boy who has a secret and then plays that secret out in a fucking witch/magician's school involving many of the most vapidly uncreative, clichéd and overwritten concepts I've ever seen, is not in any way beneficial to the intellectual health of anyone. Read something more informative, like "The origin of the number zero" or "How to build a quantum computer from cellotape and gum" instead.

I like the story, yet I agree with previous comments that it's not for the intellectual benefit of most people. (I mean if it's in the natural progress of learning to read maybe.) For me it's another story, another place to dip into, not for my intelligence (clearly, I have little of that), but for my enjoyment.

Rahul said:
That's because Spiderman 2 is the most inane vapid piece of horseshit ever made. There is no worse movie.

Your mother's a whore. How dare you accuse Spider-man 2 of being such a thing in a world that has borne such garbage as The Fast and the Furious, XXX, The Pacifier, and assuredly Hitman. Your spitefulness disgusts me, Rahul.

Don't forget You Got Served!

Matt said:
Your mother's a whore. How dare you accuse Spider-man 2 of being such a thing in a world that has borne such garbage as The Fast and the Furious, XXX, The Pacifier, and assuredly Hitman. Your spitefulness disgusts me, Rahul.

Spider Man 2 is worse than those movies. Vin Diesel is also more entertaining than the entire cast of the aforementioned put together.

Rahul makes a solid point.

What about IMDb's Bottom 100 List?

I mean while I haven't seen Hercules in New York, I certainly don't want to...
:lol:

hmm...
i love harry potte. the first movie dragged... the second one was a better attempt but still a bit boring but the THIRD wow.. it actually qualified as a real movie. and although the movie is based on the books, time restraints force details to be sacrificed for the short attention spans of little 7 year olds. afterall, the target audience are those little 7 year olds and the like. :rolleyes: