No politics in Harry Potter
Catherine Viglienzoni
Issue date: 11/1/07 Section: Opinion
- < prev Page 2 of 2
The effects of childhood suggestion can last a lifetime and potentially prevent a child from developing his or her own views. Compared with these assaults on childhood purity, the Harry Potter revelation is tame.
Those who cry out about the effect Harry Potter will have on children's opinions of homosexuality are some of the same social conservatives who complained about the books exposing children to witchcraft.
Laura Mallory, an activist who made numerous attempts to ban Harry Potter from British schools, said recently to ABC that, "Kids are being introduced into a cult and witchcraft practices."
However, even a cursory investigation of the author's intent will show that Rowling's goal was swift and effective storytelling, not political grandstanding. If there is a moral judgment in her novels, it is against racial and social prejudice (think Mudbloods), not heteronormative identity models.
Only a select few readers even guessed Dumbledore might be gay, which means that if Rowling was trying to indoctrinate her readers, she failed miserably.
In the propaganda-heavy Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed!, brothers Tommy and Lou attempt to raise money for a new swing set with their lemonade stand, but are legislated out of business by liberals resembling senators Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton.
The author, Katharine DeBrecht, has a clear political agenda she aims to impose on formless young minds.
Children should not be subjected to such blatant biases when they have not yet begun to develop their own opinions. Such actions hinder intellectual and personal growth.
Speaking on CNN on July 31, 2007, Jeremy Zilber, author of Why Mommy Is A Democrat, said, "No child is forced to read this book."
Any parent will admit this is groundless. Not many picture-book-age children choose what their parents buy for them, either.
However, just because some books don't support the values "our family supports," as one angry parent complained of King & King, a children's book about a pair of gay princes, doesn't necessarily mean that they are indoctrinating and they should not be termed as such.
When commentary of the gentlest sort, as with Harry Potter, is slapped with the harsh, dictatorial connotations of indoctrination, it stym
ies the fundamental purpose of stories: to entertain while educating, allowing children to form-if they choose -the opinion for themselves.
Those who cry out about the effect Harry Potter will have on children's opinions of homosexuality are some of the same social conservatives who complained about the books exposing children to witchcraft.
Laura Mallory, an activist who made numerous attempts to ban Harry Potter from British schools, said recently to ABC that, "Kids are being introduced into a cult and witchcraft practices."
However, even a cursory investigation of the author's intent will show that Rowling's goal was swift and effective storytelling, not political grandstanding. If there is a moral judgment in her novels, it is against racial and social prejudice (think Mudbloods), not heteronormative identity models.
Only a select few readers even guessed Dumbledore might be gay, which means that if Rowling was trying to indoctrinate her readers, she failed miserably.
In the propaganda-heavy Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed!, brothers Tommy and Lou attempt to raise money for a new swing set with their lemonade stand, but are legislated out of business by liberals resembling senators Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton.
The author, Katharine DeBrecht, has a clear political agenda she aims to impose on formless young minds.
Children should not be subjected to such blatant biases when they have not yet begun to develop their own opinions. Such actions hinder intellectual and personal growth.
Speaking on CNN on July 31, 2007, Jeremy Zilber, author of Why Mommy Is A Democrat, said, "No child is forced to read this book."
Any parent will admit this is groundless. Not many picture-book-age children choose what their parents buy for them, either.
However, just because some books don't support the values "our family supports," as one angry parent complained of King & King, a children's book about a pair of gay princes, doesn't necessarily mean that they are indoctrinating and they should not be termed as such.
When commentary of the gentlest sort, as with Harry Potter, is slapped with the harsh, dictatorial connotations of indoctrination, it stym
ies the fundamental purpose of stories: to entertain while educating, allowing children to form-if they choose -the opinion for themselves.
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 4
Jeremy Zilber
posted 11/01/07 @ 4:12 PM EST
I'm wondering if the author of this editorial thinks it's acceptable for liberal parents to tell their young children things like "homosexuality is perfectly natural," or "it's important to recycle" or "fighting is not a good way to settle your disputes. (Continued…)
Evan
posted 11/02/07 @ 2:50 PM EST
I am so over this entire thing. I'm a fan of HP, and it's no surprise that Albus is gay. I'm gay, and it was obvious to me the whole time. So the revelation was no big issue. (Continued…)
Vinom
Vinom
posted 11/05/07 @ 11:22 PM EST
I'm not surprised about the out cry, look at what happened to the Brokeback Mountain movie... I am how ever surprised that an allegedly unbiased news source's straw poll does not have an option to say that Dumbledore's JK's character, and, in her own words, "He is my character. (Continued…)
Post a Comment