Fun Stuff > ENJOY
Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (w/Spoilers)
SeanBateman:
--- Quote from: pilsner on 19 Aug 2007, 23:20 ---
--- Quote from: Dirk Hopeless on 19 Aug 2007, 15:59 ---Caiphana you are really very stupid.
--- End quote ---
Is this a joke? Caiphana's comments in this and other threads have been thoughtful and thought-provoking. The opposite of stupid.
--- End quote ---
No, they've been reactionary and self indulgent. Which is stupid.
pilsner:
"Reactionary"? Relating to reaction or ultraconservative politics? I do not think this word means what you think it means. As for self-indulgent, well this is an internet forum -- all the posts are self-indulgent. It's not like we're curing cancer here.
I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on the merits and profundity of Caiphana's posts.
Lines:
--- Quote from: Caiphana on 15 Aug 2007, 13:12 ---It STARTED with a double murder. Started. Is that something a kid should be reading about?
--- End quote ---
No offense, I'm just kind of tired with people using this argument. The book didn't actually start with a double murder, but the aftermath. Rowling never really really showed us exactly how they died until book 7, even though we start hearing/seeing glimpses in book 3. The characters are in an upheaval because Harry's parents were killed, but they didn't go into graphic detail about it. Really, I saw this as a series to begin when you're 11 and grow up with, making the first few books suitable for children, but the other books you read as you get older. If I had an 8 year old, I would surely let them read the first two books and feel fine, but I'd be more worried with book 7, because that one definitely isn't a children's book. And considering Rowling meant them as books to basically grow up with, just because book 1 is a kids book does not mean that book 7 has to be.
Caiphana:
--- Quote from: Dirk Hopeless on 20 Aug 2007, 05:37 ---
--- Quote from: pilsner on 19 Aug 2007, 23:20 ---Is this a joke? Caiphana's comments in this and other threads have been thoughtful and thought-provoking. The opposite of stupid.
--- End quote ---
No, they've been reactionary and self indulgent. Which is stupid.
--- End quote ---
*reads and shrugs* I don't care if you don't like me, sweetheart.
pilsner- hmmm. Thank you for the defense.
Linds- I see where you're coming from, and it makes sense. I keep thinking of myself and putting myself in the shoes of the little ones. I feel BAD for the kids who are currently eight, starting the HP series. They know that all the books are done, but they can't read all of them now? Why not? AUGH!
SeanBateman:
--- Quote from: pilsner on 20 Aug 2007, 07:01 ---"Reactionary"? Relating to reaction or ultraconservative politics? I do not think this word means what you think it means. As for self-indulgent, well this is an internet forum -- all the posts are self-indulgent. It's not like we're curing cancer here.
I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on the merits and profundity of Caiphana's posts.
--- End quote ---
No I'm pretty confident in my wording. Thanks though.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version