|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:08 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Thunndarr wrote: |
In this case, with sales figures of over 400 million copies sold for the series, I don't see how you can make a serious case that the books are overrated. You would have to argue that people are buying the books not because they like them, but because of some other reason (peer pressure, marketing, etc.)
The fact that people liked it and bought it, which pretty much precludes it from being overrated.
|
That's a classic ad populum fallacy. You're defining good as popular. They are not the same.
People liked the books even though they were mediocre at best. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
In this case, with sales figures of over 400 million copies sold for the series, I don't see how you can make a serious case that the books are overrated. You would have to argue that people are buying the books not because they like them, but because of some other reason (peer pressure, marketing, etc.)
The fact that people liked it and bought it, which pretty much precludes it from being overrated.
|
That's a classic ad populum fallacy. You're defining good as popular. They are not the same.
People liked the books even though they were mediocre at best. |
Wrong. I specifically did not say that, thank you very much. Things can be both good AND popular.
Perhaps you missed the part about the Coen Brothers movies? Pretty much critically acclaimed, though for the most part not box office smashes, I have mentioned that I judge them as good even though I personally do not like them. (I don't know, maybe I'm unique in that respect. Perhaps I'm the only person on the planet capable of looking outside of myself and saying, "You know what? I don't like this thing personally, but I recognize that people I respect do like it. Maybe my opinion is the oddball one. I suggest you try it sometime rather than making a very weak and unsubstantiated argument. Face it, my position is much more rational than yours.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
In this case, with sales figures of over 400 million copies sold for the series, I don't see how you can make a serious case that the books are overrated. You would have to argue that people are buying the books not because they like them, but because of some other reason (peer pressure, marketing, etc.)
The fact that people liked it and bought it, which pretty much precludes it from being overrated.
|
That's a classic ad populum fallacy. You're defining good as popular. They are not the same.
People liked the books even though they were mediocre at best. |
Wrong. I specifically did not say that, thank you very much. Things can be both good AND popular.
Perhaps you missed the part about the Coen Brothers movies? Pretty much critically acclaimed, though for the most part not box office smashes, I have mentioned that I judge them as good even though I personally do not like them. |
Did I say things could not be both good and popular? No, I did not. I said that popularity does not signify that something is good.
Your part about the Coen Brothers asserts that the Coen Brothers movies must be good because they were a box office hit. This seems to support the idea that because they are popular, they are good, even though you do not like them. Thus, the logical fallacy.
| Thundarr wrote: |
| (I don't know, maybe I'm unique in that respect. Perhaps I'm the only person on the planet capable of looking outside of myself and saying, "You know what? I don't like this thing personally, but I recognize that people I respect do like it. Maybe my opinion is the oddball one. I suggest you try it sometime rather than making a very weak and unsubstantiated argument. Face it, my position is much more rational than yours.) |
My argument is substantial. Moreso than yours, which suffers from a clear fallacy.
My argument is that as a weak writer, Rowling would use magic willy-nilly to resolve difficult situations. Magic was completely inexplicable and without economy, despite the fact that an entire school was set up devoted to the study of magic!
What does this mean? This means that Rowling was exciting the imagination of children (and adult childlike minds) by telling them that Harry Potter was born a magician, and only needed to become angry to unlock his powers. Harry Potter's magical ability was not a function of his studiousness or intellectual fortitude or even that of hard work. It was a function of him being special because of who he was (see also Star Wars and the force, which was revealed to be plainly stupid in the prequels when Lucas actually gave it mass).
The message? The message is that you would succeed as a function of how you feel and who you are, not because of working hard or achieving insight. Power would come on demand, when you needed it. Because you are entitled.
It is a message of entitlement for a pampered age and for an audience of British and Americans who felt entitled to success. It is a symbol of the decadence of the 90s and early 00s.
Furthermore, the books are not exceptionally written (for another entirely plot-driven piece of crap from this era, see the DaVinci Code). Just because they are children's books doesn't mean they have to be written by subrate authors.
I do not think that this is a frivolous discussion. After all, we all are (or once were or at least hope to be) English instructors. And most of us (have or will) teach to children. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
In this case, with sales figures of over 400 million copies sold for the series, I don't see how you can make a serious case that the books are overrated. You would have to argue that people are buying the books not because they like them, but because of some other reason (peer pressure, marketing, etc.)
The fact that people liked it and bought it, which pretty much precludes it from being overrated.
|
That's a classic ad populum fallacy. You're defining good as popular. They are not the same.
People liked the books even though they were mediocre at best. |
Wrong. I specifically did not say that, thank you very much. Things can be both good AND popular.
Perhaps you missed the part about the Coen Brothers movies? Pretty much critically acclaimed, though for the most part not box office smashes, I have mentioned that I judge them as good even though I personally do not like them. |
Did I say things could not be both good and popular? No, I did not. I said that popularity does not signify that something is good.
No, you said that *I* was confusing good and popular. I clarified.
Your part about the Coen Brothers asserts that the Coen Brothers movies must be good because they were a box office hit. This seems to support the idea that because they are popular, they are good, even though you do not like them. Thus, the logical fallacy.
Read again. I clearly said that the Coen Brothers were critically acclaimed even though they were NOT generally box office hits. Good God.
| Thundarr wrote: |
| (I don't know, maybe I'm unique in that respect. Perhaps I'm the only person on the planet capable of looking outside of myself and saying, "You know what? I don't like this thing personally, but I recognize that people I respect do like it. Maybe my opinion is the oddball one. I suggest you try it sometime rather than making a very weak and unsubstantiated argument. Face it, my position is much more rational than yours.) |
My argument is substantial. Moreso than yours, which suffers from a clear fallacy.
Well, we've already established that you didn't read my sentence correctly, therefore nullifying your point about my supposed "fallacy."
My argument is that as a weak writer, Rowling would use magic willy-nilly to resolve difficult situations. Magic was completely inexplicable and without economy, despite the fact that an entire school was set up devoted to the study of magic!
You have an assertion that you have not supported. This is not an argument. Furthermore, the books are have been critically acclaimed and have won numerous awards.
What does this mean? This means that Rowling was exciting the imagination of children (and adult childlike minds) by telling them that Harry Potter was born a magician, and only needed to become angry to unlock his powers. Harry Potter's magical ability was not a function of his studiousness or intellectual fortitude or even that of hard work. It was a function of him being special because of who he was (see also Star Wars and the force, which was revealed to be plainly stupid in the prequels when Lucas actually gave it mass).
Guess what? That's a theme seen in all kinds of children's literature. It is hardly unique that a story has an orphan with special characteristics as its main character. The fact that you don't care for this device hardly means that it's a hack writing tool.
The message? The message is that you would succeed as a function of how you feel and who you are, not because of working hard or achieving insight. Power would come on demand, when you needed it. Because you are entitled.
You clearly haven't read the book. Or if you did, you read it as carefully as my sentence about the Coen brothers (not very carefully.) In a world where everyone can do magic, then one person magic would cancel out the magic of another. Unless that other person is extremely powerful, which, in the world of Harry Potter, meant either Voldemort or Dumbledore. In the situation of the former, he did feel entitled to his power, and, maybe you missed it, he was the VILLAIN of the story. In the case of Dumbledore, he felt that people should be judged on what they do, rather than who they are. There is support of this idea in the books.
Finally, in the case of Harry himself. The books make it very abundantly clear that the reason Harry is a great wizard has nothing to do with him being special, or powerful, but because he was loved, and he in turn is a caring and loving person. In essence, the message of the book is that magic isn't all that magical, but love is. Hardly the theme that you seem to be railing against.
It is a message of entitlement for a pampered age and for an audience of British and Americans who felt entitled to success. It is a symbol of the decadence of the 90s and early 00s.
Well, you'd like it to be that, but it is not. And it is interesting that this book meant for "entitled" British and Americans has been translated into something like 40 languages and has been sold and loved all over the world.
Furthermore, the books are not exceptionally written (for another entirely plot-driven piece of crap from this era, see the DaVinci Code). Just because they are children's books doesn't mean they have to be written by subrate authors.
Again, your assertion. The books do have plot. They also contain other themes. I won't go into them now, because it's clear you've made up your mind.
I do not think that this is a frivolous discussion. After all, we all are (or once were or at least hope to be) English instructors. And most of us (have or will) teach to children. |
Your entire argument can be summed up as "I don't like Harry Potter, therefore I will rationalize my dislike." That, my friend, is a true indicator of a child-like mind. (See what I did there?)
However, a more reasonable position would be for you to simply accept that it isn't your cup of tea, that it may actually be "good" as well as "popular" that the hordes of fans that adore the book are not mouth-breathing idiots, and move on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Your entire argument can be summed up as "I don't like Harry Potter, therefore I will rationalize my dislike." |
Its not an irrational dislike I have of Harry Potter.
I have good reasons for my arguments. Its pointless to reiterate them here. That these annoy you pleases me all the better.
| Quote: |
| a more reasonable position would be for you to simply accept that it isn't your cup of tea, that it may actually be "good" as well as "popular" that the hordes of fans that adore the book are not mouth-breathing idiots |
I did not call the fans mouth-breating idiots. Those are your words. Putting words in my mouth will not endear your arguments to the very few other people who care to read this exchange.
I assert that Rowling did not have a well-defined system of magic. You claim this is not an argument and irrational and hey the books have won many awards. I shake my head in response.
There is no accounting for taste, or so people say. But I think that Harry Potter is in bad taste. You seem to have a problem with this. As I said before, this pleases me. Since you have a problem with my well-founded dislike of Harry Potter, you seem to admit that there is such a thing as bad taste, and it deserves some measure of condemnation.
The Harry Potter books are an artifact of a decadent age. Sure, I guess they were fun. And they were undeniably popular. But they are worthy of criticism. And I think it annoys many of Rowling's fans that she is being criticized for not having a well-defined magical system. That's because she is a mediocre writer who could not advance the plot without resorting to a magical resolution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Your entire argument can be summed up as "I don't like Harry Potter, therefore I will rationalize my dislike." |
Its not an irrational dislike I have of Harry Potter.
/sigh. This is getting annoying. Have I said anything at all about your dislike of Harry Potter? You don't like it, more power to you. The issue, which, my god, I can't believe you haven't picked up on it yet, is that you are using your dislike as fuel for your arguments, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. Your position is in the minority, you haven't read the books very-well, or very closely, you clearly don't understand the myriad themes interwoven in the books, and the themes you do claim to understand are not actually themes of the book at all. THAT is why I say you are rationalizing your dislike. You have reached a decision based upon emotion that you are trying to give the semblance of having been reached through reason. Why do I have to spell this out?
I have good reasons for my arguments. Its pointless to reiterate them here. That these annoy you pleases me all the better.
It's pointless to reiterate them because I have a much better grounding in the material we are talking about and the fact that you can't even read simple sentences correctly. I have already shown you that the supposed "reasons" you dislike the book are not actually supported by the text. If that pleases you, then so be it. But you should know that this doesn't make you correct, it just makes you an iconoclast.
| Quote: |
| a more reasonable position would be for you to simply accept that it isn't your cup of tea, that it may actually be "good" as well as "popular" that the hordes of fans that adore the book are not mouth-breathing idiots |
I did not call the fans mouth-breating idiots. Those are your words. Putting words in my mouth will not endear your arguments to the very few other people who care to read this exchange.
Did you see any quote-marks around that phrase? Do you assume that others read as carelessly as you do, and that they would not understand that the phrase "mouth-breathing idiots" is my characterization of your ad-hominem attack (paraphrased here) "People who like Harry Potter have child-like minds." In the future, rather than lecturing others about their behavior regarding civility, you should take a good long look in the mirror.
I assert that Rowling did not have a well-defined system of magic. You claim this is not an argument and irrational and hey the books have won many awards. I shake my head in response.
You assert that a "well-defined" system of magic is of paramount importance to the literary merit of the books. You have yet to support this assertion.
There is no accounting for taste, or so people say. But I think that Harry Potter is in bad taste. You seem to have a problem with this. As I said before, this pleases me. Since you have a problem with my well-founded dislike of Harry Potter, you seem to admit that there is such a thing as bad taste, and it deserves some measure of condemnation.
If by "well-founded" you mean "an opinion I formed after reading a hack newspaper story written by another iconoclast with little or no understanding of the deeper themes of the story" then yes, I do have a problem with that. Well-founded my ass.
The Harry Potter books are an artifact of a decadent age. Sure, I guess they were fun. And they were undeniably popular. But they are worthy of criticism. And I think it annoys many of Rowling's fans that she is being criticized for not having a well-defined magical system. That's because she is a mediocre writer who could not advance the plot without resorting to a magical resolution. |
Assertion, assertion, assertion. You clearly have no grounding whatsoever in the books, you dislike the books for whatever reason (fair enough) but realistically, it seems you have this overwhelming need to place yourself on some kind of pedestal w/r/t taste or the lack thereof. This is quite obvious in your condescending attitude, and it's surprising given the number of errors you've made in this discussion.
Edit: by the way, bumping a year old article so you can get your jollies by arguing with Harry Potter fans is not child-like at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Its obvious that I have hurt your feelings, Thundarr. Actually, I did not set out to hurt peoples' feelings when I bumped this thread. I thought it would be more interesting a discussion than the 350th reincarnation of Canada v America. Going back and re-reading your initial post I can see that I'm supposed to respect the book because a substantial amount of people enjoy it. Now I understand that you think I should be polite towards what other people enjoy.
Perhaps I should. But its a chatboard for expressing opinions, and too many of my friends like the books. And you know, I have to be polite to them. I have to take out my dislike somewhere.
You're right I have not read all the books. I've read through half of one of them (can't remember which one it was), and I've seen some of the movies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Its obvious that I have hurt your feelings, Thundarr. Actually, I did not set out to hurt peoples' feelings when I bumped this thread. I thought it would be more interesting a discussion than the 350th reincarnation of Canada v America. Going back and re-reading your initial post I can see that I'm supposed to respect the book because a substantial amount of people enjoy it. Now I understand that you think I should be polite towards what other people enjoy.
Perhaps I should. But its a chatboard for expressing opinions, and too many of my friends like the books. And you know, I have to be polite to them. I have to take out my dislike somewhere.
You're right I have not read all the books. I've read through half of one of them (can't remember which one it was), and I've seen some of the movies. |
"I'm a shameless troll who is trying to salvage the tiniest amount of face I can by acting condescending, despite the fact that my best arguments are not even my own, and my own arguments were invented out of whole cloth." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Its obvious that I have hurt your feelings, Thundarr. Actually, I did not set out to hurt peoples' feelings when I bumped this thread. I thought it would be more interesting a discussion than the 350th reincarnation of Canada v America. Going back and re-reading your initial post I can see that I'm supposed to respect the book because a substantial amount of people enjoy it. Now I understand that you think I should be polite towards what other people enjoy.
Perhaps I should. But its a chatboard for expressing opinions, and too many of my friends like the books. And you know, I have to be polite to them. I have to take out my dislike somewhere.
You're right I have not read all the books. I've read through half of one of them (can't remember which one it was), and I've seen some of the movies. |
"I'm a shameless troll who is trying to salvage the tiniest amount of face I can by acting condescending, despite the fact that my best arguments are not even my own, and my own arguments were invented out of whole cloth." |
Ha ha, no. Sorry, the books are not good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2005/jul/18/harrypotter.books
| Quote: |
Even in Potter's world, you can't just wave a magic wand
Heather Long guardian.co.uk, Monday 18 July 2005 14.25 BST
Harry Potter may seem like he lives in a world where wizards wave a wand and receive instant gratification but that's a view that needs to be demolished by the womping willow.
Scarcity exists in the magic world just as much as in the muggle world. There are a limited number of tickets to the quidditch world cup, magical creatures only shed so many feathers or hairs to go into wands and not everyone has an invisibility cloak.
JK Rowling's fictional world of magic, the latest instalment of which has just hit the bookshops, has its own central government (the Ministry of Magic), owl postal system, jail, hospital, news media, public transport (both train and bus), not to mention Gringotts Bank and a special wizard currency. There are enough institutions to make Adam Smith salivate.
With scarcity and a monetary system, the Harry Potter series should be a case study for any economics course. Here are the top 10 economic principles in Harry Potter:
Supply and demand
Wherever scarcity exists, markets emerge. A limited supply of Nimbus 2001 brooms and high demand for their sleek appearance and unparalleled speed drives up the price, so it's only affordable for people like Draco Malfoy.
Opportunity cost
In the Tri-Wizard cup, Harry stays behind to rescue Gabrielle, Fleur's sister, from the merpeople and then to help Diggory in the maze. Harry weighs the consequences of forgoing victory and decides it's more valuable to save others.
Comparative advantage
Critics complain that Hermione is a bookworm and not much of an action girl, but the young heroes simply exercise comparative advantage. Hermione is the brain, Harry is the dark arts defence expert and Ron is the chess strategist. In book one the specialised skills of each are needed to complete the obstacle course to the sorcerer's stone.
Competition
The four houses at Hogwarts function as mini-corporations. Students compete for points, have ruling hierarchies and manage their own sports teams. The competition breeds efficiency and higher productivity - why else would the Gryffindor quidditch team practise in the rain?
Savings
Harry Potter is a trust fund baby. His parents understood the importance of saving for the future, although it's not clear whether Harry's money is acquiring interest in Gringotts. Perhaps the domineering goblin who heads the bank is the central banker setting interest rates.
Consumerism
The Weasley family wins the lottery in book five and they use the prize money on a trip to Egypt. This illustrates a classical economic theory that if households acquire more wealth unexpectedly (eg from a tax cut), they will spend the extra money and stimulate the economy.
Cheap labour
Hermione launches the SPEW campaign to save the house elves from indentured servitude in book four. The campaign fails to liberate the house elves as there is little incentive for the masters to get rid of free labour. But Harry does manage to liberate one elf, Dobby, who becomes fiercely loyal to him.
Externalities
"He who must not be named", or Voldemort, vastly underestimates the power of love because it is not a material or quantifiable thing. The sacrifice of Harry's mother gives him special protection against evil. Economists would dub this "ancient magic" a positive externality.
Profit-seeking
Gilderoy Lockhart, the defence against the dark arts teacher in book two, turns out to be a fraud who spends his time preening and writing novels. Call it greed but entities act in their own best interests, whether magical or muggle.
Venture capitalism
With his vast winnings from the Tri-Wizard cup, Harry invests in the enterprising Weasley twins. Fred and George leave Hogwarts in book five to start a joke shop similar to Zonko's. If the twins' swanky green alligator skin suits at the end are any indication, it seems the investment will pay off.
Noticeably absent in the Potter series is any tax system to fund the numerous public services. Who exactly is paying for a Hogwarts education or Sirius's prison stay in Azkaban?
Don't underestimate economic principles in Harry Potter. If only he who must not be named understood neo-classical endogenous growth theory, it might have been a different story. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Its obvious that I have hurt your feelings, Thundarr. Actually, I did not set out to hurt peoples' feelings when I bumped this thread. I thought it would be more interesting a discussion than the 350th reincarnation of Canada v America. Going back and re-reading your initial post I can see that I'm supposed to respect the book because a substantial amount of people enjoy it. Now I understand that you think I should be polite towards what other people enjoy.
Perhaps I should. But its a chatboard for expressing opinions, and too many of my friends like the books. And you know, I have to be polite to them. I have to take out my dislike somewhere.
You're right I have not read all the books. I've read through half of one of them (can't remember which one it was), and I've seen some of the movies. |
"I'm a shameless troll who is trying to salvage the tiniest amount of face I can by acting condescending, despite the fact that my best arguments are not even my own, and my own arguments were invented out of whole cloth." |
Ha ha, no. Sorry, the books are not good. |
Oh, that's right, the books you haven't read are terrible. I wonder if you've formed the basis for all your opinions in life in this fashion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thunndarr wrote: |
(I generally don't like Coen brothers movies. However, several people whom I know to have good taste, and people in general seem to find them enjoyable, from which I conclude that my dissenting opinion is not the norm. I also don't like tomatoes. I don't find them to be overrated.)
. |
This is so true. People often say overrated when they really mean, they just don't like it.
There are people in my family and amonst my friends whose taste I strongly respect(and whose taste doesn't always agree with my own). I use them as a barometer. funnily enough most of them liked HP but not the Da Vinci code. This may have something to do with the expectations you have with a childrens book and a thrller.
I'm a massive Coen brothers fan btw, and am currently stuck in an office with guys i really like but who unaminously think 'no country' sucks or is overrated. They also think 'I am Legend' is great.
My former best friend in Korea who has now left is an unapologetic elitist. She used to have deal breakers for friendships, or at least you no longer respect someones taste. I loved that idea and have come up with a few of my own, although i would never break a friendship over this.
* liking tom clancy
* not liking hitchcock
* not liking any of blood simple, miller's crossing, fargo, no country
that's all i can think of right now..any of you guys have one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Does my disdain for Rowling annoy you?
Even better. |
No, Sugar Lump, it doesn't, but after having read the rest of this thread, it does amuse the hell out of me.
You form your opinion of an entire body of work based on your having read less than 1/14 of that work and, of course, lots of other people's opinions of it, and then, in another place and time, have the temerity to impugn anyone else's opinion or statement on anything as "unoriginal."
Oh my sweet Christ, ohmygod, Felix the Cat's sides don't ache quite so much as mine do right now.
And, well, thank you for having put yourself on my list of people whose posts I'll never need to read again. Blah blah blah, twaddle twaddle twaddle. Jesus H. Christ.
Just so you know, some people actually form opinions based on things they know about, not just on things they've heard that other people know about. Also, just so you know, always pay attention to the things you accuse other people of, because at least, say, half the time, that accusation applies to oneself, and even more in people who are not, shall we say, very self-aware.
But do keep trying. Someday you may perfect the disdainful, iconoclastic act you seem to seek.
Ciao.
Das |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ukon
Joined: 29 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jkelly80 wrote: |
| As a fantasy geek myself, I'd like to recommend George RR Martin and his Song of Ice and Fire series. It's more political than magical, but as realistic as any fantasy I've ever read. |
Seconded....best fantasy series ever made IMO
And Harry potter made sense economically...powerful wizards seem to be wealthier, so did well connected witches and those with a famous name. The lowest class seemed to be made of half humans, people with little to no magic ability, and other assorted creatures.
Yes, magic did seem somewhat tired to inborn traits, but it's really no different than athleticism or intelligence or looks. Some people got the short end of the stick.
For instance the weasleys are inferred to be a lower cast family of wizards with few wealthy connections aside from the government ones they meet through their father's work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ukon
Joined: 29 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
In this case, with sales figures of over 400 million copies sold for the series, I don't see how you can make a serious case that the books are overrated. You would have to argue that people are buying the books not because they like them, but because of some other reason (peer pressure, marketing, etc.)
The fact that people liked it and bought it, which pretty much precludes it from being overrated.
|
That's a classic ad populum fallacy. You're defining good as popular. They are not the same.
People liked the books even though they were mediocre at best. |
Wrong. I specifically did not say that, thank you very much. Things can be both good AND popular.
Perhaps you missed the part about the Coen Brothers movies? Pretty much critically acclaimed, though for the most part not box office smashes, I have mentioned that I judge them as good even though I personally do not like them. |
Did I say things could not be both good and popular? No, I did not. I said that popularity does not signify that something is good.
Your part about the Coen Brothers asserts that the Coen Brothers movies must be good because they were a box office hit. This seems to support the idea that because they are popular, they are good, even though you do not like them. Thus, the logical fallacy.
| Thundarr wrote: |
| (I don't know, maybe I'm unique in that respect. Perhaps I'm the only person on the planet capable of looking outside of myself and saying, "You know what? I don't like this thing personally, but I recognize that people I respect do like it. Maybe my opinion is the oddball one. I suggest you try it sometime rather than making a very weak and unsubstantiated argument. Face it, my position is much more rational than yours.) |
My argument is substantial. Moreso than yours, which suffers from a clear fallacy.
My argument is that as a weak writer, Rowling would use magic willy-nilly to resolve difficult situations. Magic was completely inexplicable and without economy, despite the fact that an entire school was set up devoted to the study of magic!
What does this mean? This means that Rowling was exciting the imagination of children (and adult childlike minds) by telling them that Harry Potter was born a magician, and only needed to become angry to unlock his powers. Harry Potter's magical ability was not a function of his studiousness or intellectual fortitude or even that of hard work. It was a function of him being special because of who he was (see also Star Wars and the force, which was revealed to be plainly stupid in the prequels when Lucas actually gave it mass).
The message? The message is that you would succeed as a function of how you feel and who you are, not because of working hard or achieving insight. Power would come on demand, when you needed it. Because you are entitled.
It is a message of entitlement for a pampered age and for an audience of British and Americans who felt entitled to success. It is a symbol of the decadence of the 90s and early 00s.
Furthermore, the books are not exceptionally written (for another entirely plot-driven piece of crap from this era, see the DaVinci Code). Just because they are children's books doesn't mean they have to be written by subrate authors.
I do not think that this is a frivolous discussion. After all, we all are (or once were or at least hope to be) English instructors. And most of us (have or will) teach to children. |
They studied other subjects at the school such as Chemistry(magical variation of it) and History...it sounded more like a specialist school similar to an elite Art or Science Academy. As for magic being used as a deus ex machina, it seemed Harry was saved far moreso by his friends and peers. I think the message was that it's your friends and who you know who really come through for you in the end.
Also, Hermione could arguably be seen as the most important person in the book series.....she is the muscle(Magically) and brains and it's greatly inferred it's due to the fact she's a nerd who studies magic more than any of the younger main characters despite coming from a non-magical family.
Harry potter was not a super powerful wizard in the books, more like an average student with great natural ability who got his ass saved by much better wizards half the time including Hermione.
I didn't read the last two books, but overall, Harry was portrayed as unreluctant hero who was primarily thrust into the spotlight due to an event that happened to him as a baby. His D- list Celebrity status is a abject mixture of amazement and fear. The only thing Harry seemed to be super talented in without putting much effort in was quidditch(a sport). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
