Comments on: Harry Potter Promotes Violence

By: HarryPotterRules

HarryPotterRules — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 04:32:45 +0000

Although I do believe that some media can promote violence, I don’t feel as if Harry Potter does. I showed this site to my friend, and she told me that the comparisons between Voldemort and Hitler were deliberate on Rowling’s part. Moaning Myrtle – another point about which you were so persistent – was their friend. They visit the bathroom to see her, and if you want to read too far into a secondary character, I suppose you could say she teaches children to be comfortable with death.

Secondly, Quidditch? Are you serious? It is a completely FICTIONAL SPORT, impossible to play without magic. And, it is based of sports that already exist. How is this fictional, unplayable sport any worse than violent games like football and rugby, where men (and in some cases, women) bash into each other constantly?

Murders, violence and ‘bad family relations’ are a fact of life. Books for all ages are based on these real-life issues, and they teach kids about things that (thankfully) they aren’t familiar with, or in other cases, help them with these negatives of life that they are experiencing. It is better dealt with in a movie or book than in real life.

And while I’m aware that you will completely disagree with my thought, and I respect that we should all have the right to argue our points of view, PLEASE DO SO SOPHISTICATEDLY. Spell check, or something. I don’t know. I’m only sixteen years old, and I still nearly projectile vomited at all the badly iterated points and spelling/grammatical errors.

By: "The impressionable youth"

"The impressionable youth" — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 02:44:19 +0000

I am a 13 year old and have been watching and reading harry potter books and movies as of my 7th birthday. i just find it sad that people can link these books and movies in one way or another to movies and the occult. i want angle to give us all a site that shows even one murderer or cult member who did those things because of harry potter. everybody i know has seen and read the books and movies. and are WE now murderers and cult members? no. i wish that angle would show us some studys that prove her point. she may have a right to tell us all of these things, weve grown use to these over the years, but heres something i am an honor student who grew to love to read because of potter, but where would i be if my mother had come to this site when trying to find a book to interest me. would she have let me read them? HECK NO! i would probobly be in the specal ed class right now insted of the gifted program. how would that make you feel angle? huh?

By: Rilan

Rilan — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 04:35:19 +0000

If you don’t approve of a 10 year old watching Harry Potter, then don’t let your 10 year old watch it. Its as simple as that.

However, I do think that, as the movies progress, children should be older when they watch them. Harry Potter, the first book, came out when I was 11 (I’m 21). The Sorcerer’s Stone is a childrens book. As the series and its characters grew up, the story got darker but while the books were getting darker I was getting older–my understanding of what was going on and what scared me fit my age and the book. The problem is, you have kids that very young and parents who are convinced that the entire Harry Potter series is for children. It is not, it evolves and matures into a young adult book (15-20). With Half Blood Prince hitting theaters very soon, I know I’m going to see very young children in the movie when they should not be there. Half Blood Prince is extremely dark.

That being said, I do think it is possible to have your kids watch Harry Potter and, like I said, if there are things your concerned about talk with your kids about them. I don’t see a problem with it at all. My sister let her children watch the movies as long as her children were, at the most, a couple years apart from the characters in the book/movie.

Media doesn’t promote violence, in my opinion, its lack of communication. Also, if your child cannot see the difference between fiction and reality, there is more going on mentally than media influence.

By: HPFANFAN!!!

HPFANFAN!!! — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:52:32 +0000

OMG!!!! the new harry potter trailer that came out!!!!!!!! OMG!!!!!!!!!!! it was hella good!!!!!

By: Mass Media & Culture

Mass Media & Culture — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 19:30:31 +0000

While I do see the resemblances between Voldemort and Hitler, I do not feel that is a bad thing. Rowling does not portray Voldemort as being right; in fact he is the antagonist in the series. Completely shielding children from Hitler and that archetype would also cause them to learn history differently. Although it is an unpleasant truth that people like that exist in the world, teaching people to distinguish right from wrong is more important. Subjecting people to one side of the issue won’t allow them to learn the principles behind the arguments (for example the flaws in reasoning Hitler had.) I also do not think that the series glorifies murdering. The main character advocates the opposite through the course of the books. There is a difference between self-defense situations and gratuitous violence. I also agree with those who reason that the fantasy setting is a mitigating factor to the occasional violence seen in the stories.

By: Sean

Sean — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:51:09 +0000

Really getting tired of the media-promotes-violence argument. Yes, there is violence in the media – there always has been. Or have we forgotten Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet”? How about the Greek myths, in which adultery and murder are not only commonplace, but are committed by deities? And these are stories that are also read by youngsters – in school, no less! Now, for one to successfully make the argument that real life violence is caused (at least in part) by media portrayed violence, you’d have to show that a vast majority of the violent people in the world not only watch and/or read violent media, but that the media was the *reason* they committed violent acts. Does anyone honestly believe they do? Isn’t it just as likely, if not more likely, that violent offenders watch violent movies and read violent books because that is what their nature attracts them to? Meanwhile, there a hundreds of thousands of people out there who have watched violent TV and movies, listened to violence in music, and read violent books, who grow up relatively non-violent; in fact, many grow up to be doctors, lawyers, police officers, rescue workers, or other emergency personnel and keepers of the peace. I’d be willing to bet that most of our world leaders have read a violent book or two in their lifetime.
You take the opinion that Quidditch is a stupid game and that the players can get hurt. First, Quidditch is a complex and athletic game as described in the book, much akin to handball in the air. I don’t know what you base your opinion that it is “stupid” on, but it seems to me that your own personal biases are filtering into what is otherwise a relatively well-organized and argued piece (note I say well argued, not that I agree with it). Also, you fail to mention that in the real world, children play football, soccer, hockey, and all sorts of other school sports which can also end in serious injury, none of which are related in any way to the media.
You also bring up the similarities between Hitler and Voldemort. I would actually use this as an argument for why HP is useful. In teaching history lessons, it is often useful to relate to kids with something they understand. What better way to teach the children about Hitler’s motives than to compare him to the most reviled villain in the HP universe? And I am fairly certain that the similarities did not slip past Rowling’s conscious, either.
You go on to complain about the murders and bad home lives. How else would you have set up the plotline? Should Voldemort have simply given a harsh reprimand to Lily and James? That would hardly make him evil, nor make everyone fear him so much, nor would it give Harry the requisite hatred to eventually defeat him. Like it or not, every story needs a protagonist and antagonist, and a motive for everyone’s actions. Perhaps you would’ve preferred Harry live with his Donna Reed-like family and Voldemort be a man in a black hat who does nothing more than dream up impossible plans for world domination a la Dr. Claw – if that’s your idea of literature, I suggest you stick to “See Spot Run.”
Why are you trying to blame the media for violence in the world? Whatever happened to parental responsibility? I’m sorry, if you can’t tell your kid, “No, you can’t go out hurting someone just because Voldemort did it,” then you have no business being a parent. And how dare the author of this article imply that children have no sense of the difference between right and wrong, and the difference between reality and fiction. Kids aren’t stupid. If parents won’t monitor their children, and those children are beyond knowing the difference between what is right and what is not, then they are well past the point where the media can be blamed.
Your article is well written, but I feel its based more on vague concepts which you hope will inflame the emotions of the readers so much that they will fail to notice the lack of actual proof.

By: angel

angel — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 05:51:15 +0000

Thanks for your opinion dear )))

By: caitlyn

caitlyn — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:35:59 +0000

i am a 15 year old american who has read every harry potter book and has see numorous blogs like this one. but let me tell you something , you think that kids cant make their own descisions that we cant diferentiate between reality and fiction . yes the movies are violent but it is a growing series , every year i would read another book and watch another movie . i basicaly grew up with it . murder and death we are all going to experiance it eventually and i think that it actually helps seeing it before it hapens to you. also if you were an kind of adult you would know that no kid atempts magic or any kind of violence with out an outside peer influence . not books not movies but people . books are not dangerous the world is . im sorry that you dont have a kids imagination its a wonderous thing truly and books are just one of the manny ways to unleash it. so please dont ruin it for other kids let them read.

By: bellaandedward=love

bellaandedward=love — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 16:04:33 +0000

angel you are really getting on my nerves.
Is it essential to reply to every comment!??!
I’ve got to agree with BArt i’m 13 and i have an 8 year old brother and there is no way the violence in the films affect him or anybody. after all most of the violence done is spells so how are you ment to replicate that?

By: Goonxxi

Goonxxi — Mon, 19 May 2008 03:14:09 +0000

Some points:
1. I disagree that the “Potter” movies promote violence. The movies may contain and/or depict violence but that is not that same as promoting violence. Hamas promotes violence. They take proactive steps to assure its occurence. Not true of the movies in question, or those that made them. Life is violent. It is virtually impossible to eliminate depictions of violence, nor should we try to do so.

2. The movie is made for a general audience and is rated by the movie industry according to its content. I concur that a ten year old may desire to see the film. I disagree that the films are made for 10 year olds. (Ten year olds also want to stay up until midnight eating chocolate and playing video games – most are not allowed to do so.) The movie’s rating is PG-13. Parents need to act accordingly when addressing issues of movie content with their youngsters. Parents should parent. The film industry should make films.

3. The final third of your post deals with some subjective plot issues that you have with the film which are mostly undebateable but some desrve comment nonetheless. The movie storyline obviously is tied to magic and therefore to “occultism”. I don’t see how this movie series is that much different than others of a sci-fi genre (eg Star Wars and Jedi Knights, Pirates Of The Carribean, etc) with its inclusion of occultism; and, is actually pretty benign in its execution despite the fact that the premise of the movie depends upon it.

3b. There is a racial component to the films, but the film heroes rally against it. That would seem to be a good thing.

3c. I also agree that murder probably isn’t appropriate major story line material for young movie goers, but then again that has much to do with how it is depicted. I wouldn’t say the films carry out death in a particulary gruesome manner, and death is absolutely vital to the plot of the story… and again the films are PG-13. Thirteen yaer olds are perfectly acquainted with death and dying; and actually, so are most 10 year olds for that matter.

3d. The movie absolutely does not depict abusive family relationships as acceptable, and actually the contrary is true. Most instances show the abusers receiving a fateful punishment for their behavior as a “just reward”.

I don’t think one can argue that the films are non-violent. One can argue that the films are appropriately violent, IF viewed by intended audiences or with PARENTAL SUPERVISION. Is this always the case? Probably not, but lets face it, if a kid watches Harry Potter, and afterward feeds his Granny a Professor Snape’s Magic Rat Poison Potato Salad there are more issues at home than the DVD rentals.