Tag Archive for 'books'

The last Harry

For the past eight years, I’ve read the books in the Harry Potter series. It started with my mom reading the first book to me and my sisters when I was 11. We read through the books mere weeks after they came out and anxiously awaited the next in the series. But now it’s over. I’ve read the seventh, and presumably the last, book. Now, I won’t spoil anything for those of you who haven’t read it yet. I will say, though, that it’s definitely the best in the series. J. K. Rowling did a damn fine job with this book in particular, especially considering she had the last chapter in mind before she even began writing the first book.

Anyways, now that I’ve read through the entire series, I’m at a bit of a loss. It’s all over. No more new Harry Potter books to look forward to. Sure, there are always the movies (still got two of those coming), but let’s face it, the movies just don’t do credit to the books. Indeed, it would be preferable to keep the movies shorter than LotR lengths (<4 hours), but a lot is left out when you need to fit a 800-page book into a movie. The latest movie (the fifth) is a good example of that. Where did Ron’s Quidditch successes go? What about Ron and Hermione as prefects? Why is Percy and his split from the rest of the Weasleys never mentioned or even seen (unless that’s him in Dumbledore’s office, sans horn-rimmed glasses)?

Now, I don’t mean to portray the fifth movie as an absolute failure, but it does not even come close to the book. I doubt future movies will improve on this, which makes it hard to anticipate them as much a I did the books. It’s a bit of a bummer, really, but at least I got good closure out of the last book. I’d hate it if Rowling had left off on a cliff-hanger. I get enough of that from Lost.

Harry Potter is not evil

For once, I couldn’t think of a clever title. Oh well. This one’s straight and to the point. Anyways, as any long-time fan of Harry Potter knows, the boy is pure evil. You heard me right. He’s a wizard and he goes to a school devoted to teaching witchcraft and wizardry. That makes him evil. Why? Well, somewhere in the Bible (I have yet to find where), there’s a passage saying that practicing magic in any form is a big no-no. Why? Well…er, I don’t know. Having not read the passage, I can’t really say why, but I bet it has something to do with not invoking power through God. Come to think of it, that really may be the reason. I once wrote to some lady who was on a vendetta against Harry Potter and her email back said something to that effect. But with more “Repent lest ye be damned!” and such. Apparently, daring to question someone who has (or thinks they have) God and the Bible on their side is even worse than reading about Harry Potter.

While I can kind of understand how some religious people can see magic as being “bad” (if only because their religion says so), I don’t think they quite get the big picture regarding Harry Potter. Heck, I highly doubt most of the hardcore anti-Harry folks have even read the books. See, Harry Potter is all about the dichotomy of good vs. evil. Sound familiar? Yeah, it’s in the Bible, too. Good wins, evil doesn’t. Old hat. So why does magic throw a wrench into the whole deal? Yes, Harry Potter practices magic. But do you see him using for anything other than good? Okay, he’s lost his temper a few times and performed a forbidden curse at least once, but that’s nothing compared to guys like Voldemort and his crew of Death Eaters. Does Harry murder? Does he torture? Does he inflict unimaginable pain on wizards and Muggles alike for amusement? No, of course not. Because he’s good. Voldemort does do these things because he’s bad. See what I’m getting at here?

Continue reading ‘Harry Potter is not evil’

The power of words

Books are amazing things. They have the unusual quality of being banned because of a single, barely offensive word. In the case of The Higher Power of Lucky, that word is “scrotum.” Yes, scrotum. That single, non-derogatory word has gotten the book banned from a number of schools, despite the fact that the book won a Newberry Medal, no doubt for the largish part of the book that doesn’t contain the word scrotum.

While this book is indeed aimed at a younger age group (9 through 12, according to the author), I find it odd how anyone would be disgusted by the use of the word scrotum, especially since it’s used in a very non-sexual context. I mean, come on. What’s going to happen to your kids if they hear the word scrotum? They’re going to wonder what it is for a bit, come to the conclusion that it’s probably something you cough up when you have a cold, and resume life no worse off than they were before. Or, perhaps they’ll ask their parents or look in a dictionary and (heaven forbid) actually learn what it means. Is this so horrible? Seriously, at what point does it become all right for kids to learn the proper names of body parts? It’s not a “pee-pee,” it’s a penis. And if you find that word (or others, such as scrotum) offensive, there is something very, very wrong with you. It’s not a word with an explicitly sexual meaning. It’s not derogatory in any way. It’s a medically accurate term for a body part, and kids are going to learn about it soon enough.

Now, I can kind of understand how parents might be at least a little iffy about the word scrotum. It’s not the kind of word you’d usually find in a children’s book, and it’s definitely not the kind of word you’d hear kids that age say (as is the case in the book). However, it is, above all, just a word, and it plays a very minor part in the book. Censors and parents are picking out this single word and ignoring the rest of the book, the content of which gained it the highest honor a children’s book can receive. Clearly the folks on the Newberry Award committee were able to look past one word to take in the book as a whole. Unlike Dana Nilsson, a teacher and librarian in Durango, Colorado, who apparently stated that the book used a “Howard Stern-type shock treatment” in its use of scrotum. Howard Stern? Lady, have you even heard the man? Scrotum is far, far too mild for dear old Mr. Stern.

Anyways, this basically all boils down to censorship-happy librarians and squeamish parents (and more of the former than the latter, judging from who’s making the most noise about it). I really must wonder what harm they think will come to kids who read the word “scrotum” in a book. Are they going to yell that at schoolmates on the bus? Are they going to drop out of high school and hang with their “scrotum-buddies” smoking pot? If this was any type of offensive word, I’d understand the uproar. But scrotum? Most kids won’t even give it a second glance. And the ones who do won’t suffer from it.

 

February 2012
S M T W T F S
« Apr    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
26272829  
Support Wikipedia