This post is for Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone Chapter 10 through Chapter 11
Many of the people that have suggested banning the Harry Potter books can be seen as extremely religious, since their main reason for the banning was based around religious influence. The bishop and St. John's school is a very strong believer that this series is bad for children to read, and even though he mostly wanted to ban it because of how it exploited magical spells and potions, he also wanted to ban them because of how their content required too much imagination. The bishop thought that children should focus on their studies during their youth because they have the rest of their lives to dream (I don't agree, imagination works best when one is young and doesn't have many responsibilities on his or her shoulders). The Harry Potter series not only shows wizards being a reality, but also other wondrous creatures, such as the troll seen in Chapter 10, within it. People like the bishop view introducing imaginary concepts and organisms as filling the brains of young ones with rubbish where knowledge can be instead, because they give students reasons to day dream during class as well as when handling situations in the outside world.
Although I cannot see the true meaning of this reason for banning, I do see that people who grow up in fantasy worlds of fairies and wizards usually turn out to ignore true responsibilities later in life. Reading is an activity for fun and learning, though, so it is not very likely for children to get so carried away from only one series. If Harry Potter should be banned for influencing too much imagination, why not books such as The Phantom Tollbooth or movies like Peter Pan? Also, it is not unlikely to grow out of intense imagination, and imagination is what inspires people to try new things and risk a chance for something that they want more than anything else. The troll in Chapter 10 of this section inspires Harry and Ron to save Hermione, and without the presence of this imaginary creature, Ron would have never been able to see the mistake he made by insulting as talented a girl as Hermione. Imagination has a big role in realizing the potential one has as well as others around them; if people like Gandhi had not imagined a free world, then maybe countries like India would have never gained their freedom. "But from that moment on, Hermione Granger became their friend. There are some things you can't share without ending up liking each other, and knocking out a twelve-foot mountain troll is one of them." (pg. 179). A student can learn even from a monster as ugly and menacing as the troll about friendship and accepting others for who they are. It seems, though, that people like the bishop at St. John's never look at this series from that angle because they are blind about everything other than what they want to happen.
I would have to say I agree with you, Abby, when you say that people are just overreacting about banning the series. I mean, seriously, no one is being forced to read it, and censorship can only go so far... I think that banning this series is mostly just a way for people to let children know that they need not to pay attention to such things, but is it right taking out the elements of fun in children's books? Books are just a way to express ideas, and everyone, at least in America, has the right to learn about what others think of life if the person sharing doesn't mind. Creative writers such as J. K. Rowling should be acknowledged for their talent rather than taunted for their childishness.
Many of the people that have suggested banning the Harry Potter books can be seen as extremely religious, since their main reason for the banning was based around religious influence. The bishop and St. John's school is a very strong believer that this series is bad for children to read, and even though he mostly wanted to ban it because of how it exploited magical spells and potions, he also wanted to ban them because of how their content required too much imagination. The bishop thought that children should focus on their studies during their youth because they have the rest of their lives to dream (I don't agree, imagination works best when one is young and doesn't have many responsibilities on his or her shoulders). The Harry Potter series not only shows wizards being a reality, but also other wondrous creatures, such as the troll seen in Chapter 10, within it. People like the bishop view introducing imaginary concepts and organisms as filling the brains of young ones with rubbish where knowledge can be instead, because they give students reasons to day dream during class as well as when handling situations in the outside world.
Although I cannot see the true meaning of this reason for banning, I do see that people who grow up in fantasy worlds of fairies and wizards usually turn out to ignore true responsibilities later in life. Reading is an activity for fun and learning, though, so it is not very likely for children to get so carried away from only one series. If Harry Potter should be banned for influencing too much imagination, why not books such as The Phantom Tollbooth or movies like Peter Pan? Also, it is not unlikely to grow out of intense imagination, and imagination is what inspires people to try new things and risk a chance for something that they want more than anything else. The troll in Chapter 10 of this section inspires Harry and Ron to save Hermione, and without the presence of this imaginary creature, Ron would have never been able to see the mistake he made by insulting as talented a girl as Hermione. Imagination has a big role in realizing the potential one has as well as others around them; if people like Gandhi had not imagined a free world, then maybe countries like India would have never gained their freedom. "But from that moment on, Hermione Granger became their friend. There are some things you can't share without ending up liking each other, and knocking out a twelve-foot mountain troll is one of them." (pg. 179). A student can learn even from a monster as ugly and menacing as the troll about friendship and accepting others for who they are. It seems, though, that people like the bishop at St. John's never look at this series from that angle because they are blind about everything other than what they want to happen.
I would have to say I agree with you, Abby, when you say that people are just overreacting about banning the series. I mean, seriously, no one is being forced to read it, and censorship can only go so far... I think that banning this series is mostly just a way for people to let children know that they need not to pay attention to such things, but is it right taking out the elements of fun in children's books? Books are just a way to express ideas, and everyone, at least in America, has the right to learn about what others think of life if the person sharing doesn't mind. Creative writers such as J. K. Rowling should be acknowledged for their talent rather than taunted for their childishness.
No comments:
Post a Comment