Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
True, though I do appreciate evman's point and I'd probably agree that the majority of what most people look at (TV being worse than reading) does promote a non-scientific way of thinking.. Not overtly anti-scientific, but just a magical way of thinking as opposed to a rational way.
|
I appreciate his point as well, but I just don't agree with the target. Rowling isn't promoting it as truth or anything more than a fairy tale for kids. It's like saying Cinderella is "anti-science" because crystal shoes wouldn't make it in the real world.
And just as an aside, I really don't like Harry Potter books. I read the first one (it was sort of a "professional" responsibility for me at the time) but I didn't like it. I did see how much kids loved it though. Convincing a learning-impaired 10-year-old to read a book that's 4 inches thick and doesn't have any pictures is a hell of a trick and that woman pulled it off millions of times. Children are smarter if they read her books.