I've seen some pretty radical claims concerning Harry Potter, from the extremist religious nuts ("Promotes Witchcraft!") to the extremist gay nuts ("She's courageous!") but this probably has to take the cake.

I highlighted some parts that were particularly fucking retarded.

-_-

 

I don't think JKR put a lot of deep thought into the series let alone made it a political statement. This guy need to get out more...

 

Honestly I've thought this for awhile. Glad someone said out loud what so many of us have been thinking.

 

or just needs a bit of pussy.

 

Bless them, they try so hard to make the books seem deep and thoughtful.

 

... when in reality they are still nothing more than a childrens fantasy book.

 

Mm, it's depressing that people still manage to find this shit in possibly the most guileless book out there today. What's that Miss Rowling? You want me to promote equality, aspire to bravery, and marry a redhead? Right on!

 

Here's some even deeper shit - an analysis of Ro's subconscious:

Source

 

See to me that reads as if you had to ask her permission and she reluctantly allowed you to fuck her in the ass.. or backdoor, or well guarded tunnel, in a hidden, tight, round entrance if you will.

Not birthing at all.

 

Sweet... fuck

 

Idiots like these are why Derrida and Freud's theories should be kept away from the masses. They'll use them and come up with moronic results.

Not that I particularly care for Derrida or Freud's methods for literary criticism anyway . . . Seems kinda stupid to adopt a dogmatic philosophy for understanding a book since, odds are, the author doesn't share your views.

Unless of course you don't like the idea of authorial intent (lke Derrida). Then you're a solipsist and shouldn't be criticizing shit in the first place since neither you nor anyone else can really understand the criticism you're levelling.

Sorry, bitter about deconstructionist philosophy right now. It is stupid, and quite pointless.

 

It is fun though sometime to hear a long winded rant by some idiot who says because some men really like sucking on a girls tits, that it means they were deprived of being breastfed as a child.

Remember hearing that more or less, on 20/20 a few weeks back, some 90 million dollar, 5 year government study on why men like breasts.... It was a report on how our gov wastes money on stupid studies that any common sense would tell you the answers to. They then followed it up with a shrink using Freudian bs, saying the money was well spent, etc.

 

Rowling can't be a Libertarian. For her, the greater good is not a supererogatory function, but a required one.

 

That is weird.... I had to slap myself to make sure I wasn't dreaming this (did that once, strange dream too). To all the great philosophers and psychologists out there going over the HP stuff with a fine tooth comb...

ITS A CHILDREN'S BOOK.

Leave the nitpicking to fanfic authors.

 

Admittedly, there may, and I repeat, may have been some sort of subconscious effect of Rowling's personality and psychoses on her writing, but as this is a children's book, I highly doubt it.

This is just a result of people deciding that everything must have some sort of deep seated meaning, and that everyone is a deep, well-thought, and intelligent individual. Not the case.

As for the psycho-analyses on Rowling's works, I believe that most psychoanalysts results tend to reflect more on them through their interpretations than on the subject. They do think differently, and a mental association one person has can be completely different from one that someone else may have.

 

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! What's with all the people analyzing a children's book? Is it because of its popularity or is it because of its "magical" nature? ITS A CHILDREN'S BOOK! That's all there is to it. However, I do admit that authors do, sometimes, insert parts of their own personality or mindset into a book they write, but isn't that what makes a good book?



Edit: I seem to be forgetting how to use question marks at the end of my questions.