16 Reasons Harry Potter is Better Than The Bible

[Zidneya]

Well…
I think it's time to convert to Potterism.

[Violet]

More interesting than multiple cases of genocide, horrendous famine, rape upon explicit rape, dirty old wife beatin, and a self righteous son of God?

Maybe, maybe not... but it's pretty weak overall.

[FreeTony]

Harry Potter is more believable.

[Violet]

Harry Potter is more believable.

Right, because 110 pound women make great body shields for their infant children when they're being shot.

Ehh, I guess it's still better than calling down the bare naked wrath of nature upon people for calling you "baldie".

[Clueless Morgan]

Harry Potter is more believable.

Right, because 110 pound women make great body shields for their infant children when they're being shot.

How do you know Lily wasn't a 180 pound voluptuous vixen? Pshaw...



:p

[Jenny A]

I like the Harry Potter books, but they are hardly the be all end all of 2th Century literature.

What I don't like about this list is that is simplifies complex questions that Rowlings doesn't actually simplify. J. K. Rowling's people are not actually all either good or evil Harry, Dudley, Snape, Dumbledore, Draco, Ron, and numerous other characters are both good and bad.

Harry's mother does sacrifice herself for Harry, but Harry is later required to sacrifice himself for everyone.

[Gawdzilla]

I like the Harry Potter books, but they are hardly the be all end all of 2th Century literature.

What I don't like about this list is that is simplifies complex questions that Rowlings doesn't actually simplify. J. K. Rowling's people are not actually all either good or evil Harry, Dudley, Snape, Dumbledore, Draco, Ron, and numerous other characters are both good and bad.

I don't recall him saying they were black and white characters.

Harry's mother does sacrifice herself for Harry, but Harry is later required to sacrifice himself for everyone.

No, Harry choses to sacrifice himself. He's not required to by anybody. He could have jump on his Firebolt and shagged ass.

[Zidneya]

Jesus took three days to resurrect.

Harry took five minutes.

[Clueless Morgan]

I like the Harry Potter books, but they are hardly the be all end all of 2th Century literature.

What I don't like about this list is that is simplifies complex questions that Rowlings doesn't actually simplify. J. K. Rowling's people are not actually all either good or evil Harry, Dudley, Snape, Dumbledore, Draco, Ron, and numerous other characters are both good and bad.

I don't recall him saying they were black and white characters.

He didn't. I think this is an example of a complex issue that is often simplified when talking about books, as Jenny was talking about.

And I would actually contend that Luna Lovegood is, I think, the closest to an "all-good" character that you get in the books, while I find it very difficult to find redeeming qualities about some of the Death Eaters (Fenrir Greyback the werewolf guy, Bellatrix Lestrange, Voldemort himself...). So I agree that the majority of characters are pretty well shaded, there do exist some pretty stark dark and light characters.

Harry's mother does sacrifice herself for Harry, but Harry is later required to sacrifice himself for everyone.

No, Harry choses to sacrifice himself. He's not required to by anybody. He could have jump on his Firebolt and shagged ass.

^^-- this.

Harry's mother chose to sacrifice herself for her child, whether you think of that as a choice or not. She didn't have to, but, like probably most mothers, she did.

Harry chose to sacrifice himself in order to help his friends defeat Voldemort and the Death Eaters. Harry's death wasn't about giving salvation to the wizarding world, they would still remain in huge danger even after Harry's death. What Harry recognized was that his death was the only way to bring about the death of Voldemort, since

---

Harry had become a horcrux.

---

(I imagine most people reading this thread have read the books, but still. :p)

Once Harry was dead, his friends still had to defeat the Death Eaters, and, perhaps, a now mortal (or killable) Voldemort. Harry's death wasn't an instantly redemptive act, it was a way to facilitate winning against the Death Eaters.

Jesus took three days to resurrect.

Harry took five minutes.

Yeah, but being dead for three days means you actually know he's dead. :p

How do we know Harry wasn't just knocked unconscious for a few minutes? By the time Narcissa went to check his vital signs, Harry had already revived, so no one actually knew whether he really died or not, they just believed that he had. It's only through the third-limited POV that we share with Harry that we know what he experienced, and, frankly, we don't know whether he hallucinated that whole Kings Cross Station scene or not. The introduction of a shit ton of brand new information suggests it wasn't a hallucination.



Oops, my HP geek leaked out a bit... sorry.

[Gawdzilla]

Harry was on the point of dying. If he'd "caught a train" he would have gone "on". He went back because his friends were in trouble.

My late wife was going to be a children's librarian, and she made me read the HP books so she could argue about them with someone. For the last four book we bought two copies so we would have to wait for the other to finish.