stoney wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:40:17 -0400, Eris
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:10:31 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
wrote:


"Christopher A. Lee" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:43:18 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
wrote:


"~ janj JJsPond.ca" wrote in message
...
Why should anyone care?
A true a theist would not allow his child to read Harry Potter anyway.

I'll be sure to tell my Catholic sis-in-laws that bought the Harry Potter
book last weekend that they're not "true theists".

Exactly. My nearest Barnes and Noble stores (Poughkeepsie and
Newburgh)

chuckle I sometimes forget that you don't live that far from me

were open into the small hours when the latest book came
out, and did record business. In an area where the demographics meant
the majority of customers were some kind of Christian.

But, of course! All my friends and family are christian and all of them and
their children read the books. Whoopsie!

The woman who condems me to Hell every week, purchase HP for her two
daughters. This woman can not wait to look down from heaven and wave
to me in Hell.

Below, is linked, an interesting article about Harry Potter, that
matches some of my own observations, actually -- never seen the movies,
or read the books though. I do note, there are an awful lot of fantasy
oriented shows on US television. Let's see, we've got, or had, Buffy
The Vampire Slayer, Monsters (or something like that), that witch show
-- one where they're always talking about demons, and avatars, and
stupid **** like that, and Smallville.

Though I'm not sure Smallville is quite of the same category, because
the power seems to be mostly concentrated in the single embodiment of
the Superman like character, and though there are occasionally others
with powers, it all seems more or less "reality" based in the sense of
the premise, however unlikely, that it is all the result of a meteorite
or some such. Though it does seem less "reality" based than the
Superman of yore, so perhaps it represent sort of a morphing, or
degneration of the Superman character, and theme, into allignment with
more modern, egalitarian power distribution concepts, or rather,
delusions. With the old Superman, you knew Superman was a hero,
something special, and most likely, and realistically, that meant, not
you.

With the other shows, the power seems to be distributed more
promiscuously, without any particular rhyme or reason about it. They
seem to be about self delusion -- delusion of being powerful,
especially with the women -- mentality of like, 'I'm gonna put a spell
on you..' Which seems to be pretty much in line with the supposed
classic feminine affinity toward passive aggressive mentality -- the
oppositional strategy of coversion, and treachery, rather than direct
affrontry (whereas, with men, the negative side of the continuum is
supposedly violence, agression).

As a kid, I grew up with The Wizard of Oz -- I was captivated by it,
much as I imagine Potter fans today. I know the Wizard message was
about self directedness, and so on, and I've heard contentions Potter's
the same thing. I don't know -- like I said, at least regarding all
these shows on TV, they seem to be pretty shallow with their elloborite
constellations, hierarchies of monsters, demons, angels, councels,
spell books, and so on -- I mean, pah-lease, give me a break. The
Wizard Of Oz was obviously different, at least in one respect -- the
wicked witch of the east was killed at the outset, and wicked witch of
the west -- the one with the flying monkeys -- melted when she was
doused with a bucket of water.

A main contention of the article below, is that it's all about
narcissism:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GG20Aa01.html

Bryan